I do notice that tallinex is not on this list. Yes that extra time on sunday is definitely a problem
this is the cftc list
The RED List, which stands for Registration Deficient List, identifies unregistered foreign entities the CFTC has reason to believe are illegally soliciting and/or accepting funds from U.S. residents. Companies soliciting U.S. customers to trade in foreign currency (forex) or binary options, for example, are required to register with the CFTC
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Vicki.
I’m guessing that you were unable to provide links, because you haven’t yet reached the magic post-count. So, I’ll post the links for you.
Here is the September 9 Press Release from the CFTC —
That document links to the following list —
Two of our three TRUSTED BROKERS — [B]FX Choice[/B] and [B]Trader’s Way[/B] — are on this CFTC “hit list”.
Note this statement at the bottom of each page of the list:
The inclusion of an entity’s name on the RED list does not mean that the CFTC or a Court has concluded that a violation of any provision of the Commodity Exchange Act or the Commission’s Regulations has occurred.
Edit:
When it comes to dealing with the meddling of the CFTC and the rest of the Nanny State,
freedom-loving American forex traders agree with the ITALIAN POINT OF VIEW
:42:
“In certain cases, a preliminary review by the CFTC reveals that foreign entities that solicit and/or accept funds from U.S. residents at a retail level have no or limited U.S. presence, and act in a capacity that requires registration, but are not in fact registered.”
It seems the companies on the “red list” are out of the reach of the CFTC and have not done anything illegal. Well anyway more broker options for us, let the vetting begin.
FWIW Smarttrade has had a meltdown. Changed servers 2 weeks ago and its been a disaster ever since
Millicentfx – Thanks for posting the heads up!
I see they’ve zeroed my MT4 account with the note “transfer to new platform”. But no instructions on what to do now. No emails.
Downloaded a new terminal from their website but things get even weirder – it’s just a generic MT4 with FXCM demo.
There is a notice on the STFX homepage saying live chat will be down until Wednesday. Guess I’ll have to wait a few extra days to find out what the heck is going on. Hope these guys aren’t going belly up…
[B]UPDATE[/B]
Found some recent discussion about this on the Forex Factory blog (see last few posts):
Smarttradefx - Page 4 @ Forex Factory
Apparently, SmartTradeFX is near bankruptcy due to losses from the SNB crisis. They are still communicating, but withdrawals have been frozen.
Let’s parse the CFTC’s hit-list.
Bureaucrats in government — especially the federal government — love that word [I]parse.[/I]
So, this parse is for you, CFTC.
The CFTC’s 9/9/15 press release is reproduced verbatim below in black type. My comments are in red.
RELEASE: PR7224-15
September 9, 2015
CFTC Publishes List of Foreign Entities that Illegally Solicit U.S. Residents to Trade Foreign Currency and Binary Options
The New Registration Deficient ‘RED List’ Identifies Companies Operating Illegally
In the first two lines of this press release, the CFTC is committing fraud on anyone who reads it, with the phrases
“…Foreign Entities that [U]Illegally[/U] Solicit U.S. Residents…” — and —
“…Companies Operating [U]Illegally[/U].”
This is a smear-job by the CFTC. This is CFTC bullcrap, resorting to allegations they can’t substantiate, against offshore brokers they can’t prosecute — because there is no legal basis for prosecution. The CFTC admits as much in their next sentence, and in the disclaimer at the bottom of this hit-list.
Washington, DC — As part of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) ongoing efforts to help protect Americans from fraud, today the agency launched the “RED List,” a new tool that allows investors to identify unregistered foreign entities that may be engaged in illegal practices.
And there it is: “…[U]unregistered[/U] foreign entities that [U]may be[/U] engaged in illegal practices.”
It’s the “unregistered” part that really gets under the skin of the CFTC nannies.
But, the take-away from the sentence above is this: “…[U]may be[/U] engaged in illegal practices.” What happened to the blanket assertions made in the first two lines of this press release? Oh, right, those assertions were just bullcrap.
Anybody can suggest that some entity (foreign or otherwise) [U]may be[/U] engaged in illegal practices. How 'bout we make a list of bureaucrats in the federal government — including a dozen, or so, at the CFTC — who [U]may be[/U] engaged in illegal practices?
The RED List, which stands for Registration Deficient List, identifies unregistered foreign entities the CFTC has reason to believe are illegally soliciting and/or accepting funds from U.S. residents. Companies soliciting U.S. customers to trade in foreign currency (forex) or binary options, for example, are required to register with the CFTC. The RED list can be found at: CFTC SmartCheck.
“…Registration [U]Deficient[/U] List…” — “deficient” ? — there they go with the name-calling again
“…unregistered foreign entities…” — yup, everybody knows that “unregistered” is just plain evil,
and “foreign entities” — well, you know how shifty those entities are!
“…[U]the CFTC has reason to believe[/U] are illegally soliciting…” — oh, so now they’ve gone from
“…[U]entities that illegally solicit[/U]…” — to —
“…[U]may be engaged in illegal practices[/U]…” — to —
“…[U]the CFTC has reason to believe are illegally soliciting[/U]…”
“Companies soliciting U.S. customers…are required to register with the CFTC.” — this is a gross overstatement. The CFTC has legal jurisdiction over [I]U.S. entities[/I] engaged in certain financial activities, and over [I]certain foreign entities[/I] in certain foreign countries. The CFTC has not yet gotten their hooks into the entities on their hit-list — otherwise, they would be prosecuting them, rather than slandering them.
Today, I’m pleased we are launching the RED List, an important new tool that will further protect customers from bad actors. This initiative will allow people to make more informed decisions about investing – and help protect themselves against financial fraud,” said CFTC Chairman Tim Massad.
“…an important new tool that will further protect customers from bad actors.” — this list does nothing to protect customers
“…bad actors.” — more name-calling and slander from the [I]bad actors[/I] at the CFTC
Registration is no guarantee against fraud or mismanagement by an otherwise unscrupulous firm; however, it does bring a higher level of security and accountability to the public. For example, registration enables the CFTC to examine whether firms meet minimum financial standards as well as disclosure, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
“Registration is no guarantee against fraud or mismanagement by an otherwise unscrupulous firm;” — finally, a statement we can agree with
“…however, it does bring a higher level of security and accountability to the public.” — a dubious statement which cannot be proven
The RED List joins CFTC’s SmartCheckSM campaign, launched last year, to help investors identify and protect themselves against financial fraud. CFTC is actively working with other regulators, consumer groups, industry participants, self-regulatory organizations, exchanges, and industry associations to further protect individual investors from fraud.
“…to help investors identify and protect themselves against financial fraud.” — this hit-list does no such thing
“CFTC is actively working with other regulators…” — you bet they are, attempting to be the World Forex Police, compelling all the lesser, subservient regulators around the world to dance to the CFTC tune
Last Updated: September 9, 2015
They got the date right.
So, that makes — what? — two sentences in this entire smear-job that are [I]not[/I] exaggerations, distortions, or outright lies?
:42:
Note to the CFTC
I trade forex offshore.
If you don’t like it, FUCFTC.
:42:
.
[B]milicentfx[/B] and [B]Shatner,[/B]
Please keep us updated on this situation.
So i seen that Tradersway made it to the CFTC “hit list” can someone explain what does that really mean? Im sorry im new to this and I just wanted to know,does this mean that clients accounts with Tradersway are in jeopardy?
The CFTC put out a red list which will “allow people to make informed decisions on how to invest their money.” Ironic, now at this phase, the people are being counted on to make an informed decision based on the red list, It almost seems backwards. Perhaps a red list should have been their first tool, before creating the regulations.
As Clint said earlier, It seems the CFTC is now resorting to slander and name calling, and since they have no legal grounds to punish the companies on the red list because they have little or no U.S. Presence. I believe it important for US customers that have invested with Tradersway and other offshore companies on the list to let other people know about their positive experiences investing with these companies because if people see the red list and assume these companies are trouble they will not open accounts and thus make it less attractive for companies such as Tradersway, and others like them to continue offering their services to US residence despite pressure from CFTC and its allies.
Ahh i c now…ok well they do make it clear on the bottom of their site that they are not trying to “solicit” Us or Uk clients. Lets just say that God forbid they stop accepting clients with Us residency, what do you think the norm would be for existing clients…do they just get the boot?
Hello, [B]Pips4real,[/B] and welcome to this forum.
First of all, the [I]short answer[/I] to your question is that [B]Trader’s Way[/B] appears to be beyond the reach of the CFTC, for reasons which you will understand in the [I]long answer[/I] which follows. This is not to say that the CFTC will ever give up in their quest to subjugate every forex broker (as well as every commodity futures broker) in the world.
Okay, fasten your seat-belt. I’ll try to bring you up to speed on this matter.
Newcomers to this thread often ask,
[B]How is it that the CFTC — the U.S. regulator of commodity futures and forex —[/B]
[B]— has authority over certain foreign brokers?[/B]
I’ll give you my answer to this question, with the caveat that this is not a legal opinion.
If we define a foreign broker — what we refer to as an [I]offshore broker[/I] in this thread — as a forex broker owned, incorporated, or otherwise domiciled outside the U.S., then it appears that there are three groups of these foreign brokers that the CFTC has successfully targeted and shut down:
[B]1.[/B] Brokers who (a) operate head offices or branch offices in the U.S., (b) have IB’s or other representatives acting on their behalf in the U.S., and/or © engage in advertising of any sort (including via websites) intended to solicit the forex trading business of U.S. residents.
Apparently U.S. laws and regulations are straightforward in giving the CFTC the authority to prosecute these brokers for failing to register with the CFTC and failing to comply with all CFTC/NFA rules and regulations. Between 2010 and 2013 there were many of these prosecutions.
[B]2.[/B] Brokers in countries which have entered into an agreement called a Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (an MMoU, sometimes just called an MoU or MOU) which essentially says (among many other things) that the regulators in those countries will cooperate with the CFTC in preventing their brokers from doing business with U.S. residents, [I]unless[/I] those brokers register with the CFTC and comply with all CFTC/NFA regulations.
These agreements have the force of law, and are the reason that U.S. residents cannot open accounts with brokers in the U.K., in any E.U. country, in Canada, or in any of more than 100 other countries around the world. The regulators in these countries comprise an organization called The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), and the countries they represent are referred to as “IOSCO-MMoU Signatories”.
Here’s the IOSCO webpage giving some specifics about the MMoU’s — OICV-IOSCO - Iosco.org
And here is a link to the current list of IOSCO-MMoU Signatories — OICV-IOSCO - Iosco.org
Note that [I]most[/I] of the countries in which the offshore brokers in our Offshore Broker List are domiciled are not (yet) on this list of signatories. This includes Dominica, for example, where [B]Trader’s Way[/B] is domiciled.
There are three brokers on our List — [B]AssetsFX[/B] in Finland, [B]Renesource Capital[/B] in Latvia, and [B]IKOFX[/B] in British Virgin Islands — [I]which are in MMoU Signatory countries,[/I] and we continue to monitor their independence, and hope that their governments continue to keep their hands off these brokers.
And finally,
[B]3.[/B] Brokers who do not fall into either (1) or (2) above, but have been targeted by the CFTC on the sketchy pretext that they are soliciting U.S. residents by virtue of the fact that their websites can be accessed by persons inside the U.S. Evidently, the CFTC has been successful in forcing compliance or submission on the part of a few such brokers, simply through intimidation.
It should be noted that [B]Trader’s Way[/B] states clearly on their website that their site is not intended to solicit residents of the U.S. or the U.K. Many other brokers around the world have similar disclaimers on their websites.
Additional notes on the list of IOSCO-MMoU Signatories:
You may have noticed that Canada is not listed as a signatory. However, the three Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario) which allow retail forex trading (and impose their own provincial regulations) are all listed as signatories.
There is an “Appendix B” to the list of signatories, and this Appendix basically consists of the next batch of countries expected to fall into line with the IOSCO regime. Notice that Panama, where [B]Forex-Metal[/B] is domiciled, is listed in this Appendix.
.
Oh my Clint, you are pretty thorough in your answer and i love that. Thanks for taking the time out to do a wonderful explanation. Its my pleasure to meet you. Well Hell, if im not mistaken I believe that I read that this isnt the first time the CFTC has pulled an “intimidation” stunt on TW…i think they did back in 2k11 or so…I just hope alls well and ends well for TW as i have interest in there if u know what I mean.
BTW Clint I hope that im not being to forward in asking if is there any way possible that you can email me, thru the system as I have a “off the record question” to ask…if not no worries are hard feelings…i just dont think that the question would really be appropriate for the forum even though it pertains to the subject matter.
Sorry scratch that and ignore this post, after re-reading your previous post i found my answer. I seriously apologize. Thanks.
Thanks for this additional info, Shatner.
In the Offshore Broker List, I will add a warning to the [B]SmartTradeFX[/B] listing.
.
Good job, Clint. Go get’m. (the CFTC and its gangsters)
This is a snip from a Tallinex email I just received. I was hoping Paul would elaborate? Is this related to the CFTC or US customers? The hurdles just keep coming.
[I][B]"…The effect of this change is that wires can now only be accepted from financially-licensed individuals and corporations."[/B][/I]