So far none of the brokers of those sued has announced entering the defense. Most if not all of them will in all likelihood ignore these lawsuits. If a Chinese government agency sued my company for doing business in China without registration there merely because my company’s website is accessible in that country, I couldn’t care less about their lawsuit.
I am not so quick to sing their praises. For one, I had problems with FInFX as their servers’ log files easily fill up when your EA tries to send multiple modify or closing requests to pending orders, and second, FinFX is a Broker who does NOT have their own infrastructure, and uses Integral (in New York) as a liquidity provider (so, obviously, latency can be a factor).
Which MT4 Forex broker uses no external liquidity providers?
One of the issues is not about external liquidity providers, but rather a european based broker should have a european based liquidity provider which obviously do exist, not one based in the US. I should have been clearer on this matter in my previous post. In my experience using EA’s on various brokers, I have found that the distance of their liquidity provider does lead to latency issues in order execution, and have seen it firsthand in decreased trading activity of EA’s on their MT4 platform versus others.
Have you contacted FinFX about this issue? The number of trades my EAs make with them is identical to that with other brokers.
You are fortunate. I have spoken with them about this and this matter is actually compounded with the other issue I mentioned in my first post regarding their infrastructure. The EA I use constantly updates entry and stop loss prices on pending orders and their servers couldn’t handle it. I went back and forth with their support team about changing the settings of the frequency the EA alters pending trades. I told them there wasn’t a way of changing it and they threatened halting my trading account. I beat them to the punch and closed my account out. My EA has had no such issues with any other MT4 platforms back end servers or decreased trading activity because of latency/slippage issues from their liquidity provider. This should not be the case for an ECN firmin my opinion. To close, believe me I monitor the trade activity of the EA all the time. I think the combination of the two added up to them not being a good broker choice for me to use. My case is probably the exception, but I found HotForex and Trading Point to be better ECN choices. Thanks for the good conversation 
I’ve been looking into those firms too. HotForex is a Mauritius shop with Russian roots, so don’t expect much if any regulatory protection there in an event of a dispute, and Trading Point is now under the US CFTC lawsuit. These are the reasons that keep me away from those firms.
Those are good reasons, but with FinFX using a US liquidity provider, that just gives the CFTC the legal wranglings to go after them should they decide to at some point.
Makes me wonder why the CFTC hasn’t done so to date.
I guess because they have a staff that is only so big and stretched thin. They can only go after so many firms world wide and in the US at a time.
What makes them go after some of the completely unpopular and little-known firms instead of going after the well-known ones before all?
Who knows, but you’re probably aware of this article already because Trading Point is listed in it. Nationwide Sweep: CFTC Shuts Down 11 Unregistered Forex Firms | Newsroom Magazine USA Edition
Their main contention is that they are soliciting the public without being registered with the CFTC. I honestly don’t get how the CFTC can strong arm these foreign firms when they don’t have the jurisdictional power to do so?
They probably can’t. That’s why we haven’t heard of any success of theirs with their earlier lawsuits against FXOpen and InstaForex.
Well the only thing I know about FXOpen is that they don’t accept US clients anymore, so they must have caved to CFTC pressure. I just got of off of chat with Trading Point and their answer was very informative for me:
Andy Draniewicz | 10:49
Welcome to Trading Point, how may I assist you?
Peter | 10:50
hi. quick question please. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on September 8, 2011 filed suit against trading point and a bunch of other firms. my question is are you still accepting us clients?
Andy Draniewicz | 10:52
Trading Point of Financial instruments is aware of the September 8th complaint by CFTC for failure to register according to the new legislation. The complaint has yet to be officially served to Trading Point, however the management and legal team of the company are fully aware of the issue and will be in communication with the CFTC staff to speedily resolve the matter.
Trading Point of Financial Instruments is a European regulated company licensed by CYSEC and in strict compliance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC (known as “MiFID”). MIFID is the European Union law that provides harmonized regulation for investment firms across the 30 member states of the European Economic Area. The main objectives of the Directive are to increase competition and consumer protection in investment service. The key aspects of MiFID are to ensure amongst others: Authorization, regulation and pass-porting, client categorization, client order handling, pre-trade transparency, post-trade transparency, best execution and Systematic Internaliser.
MIFID consumer protection regulation is by no means inferior to any non EU equivalent. Moreover the EU directive respects the rights of any responsible trader to trade under the conditions he chooses as long as the substantial risks of financial loss are clearly made known to him.
Trading Point prides itself on its reputation for having the client’s best interests as its cornerstone. The company respects and does its best to be in line with the laws of every country.
Finally we want to reassure everyone that the complaint of CFTC for failure to register will be resolved and it does not in any way affect the everyday operations of the company.
Peter | 10:53
thanks for the press release, but that still doesn’t answer my question as to are you still accepting us clients because of this?
Andy Draniewicz | 10:55
We are able to provide our services to U.S. Clients as we have a cross border license, obtained through our regulator (CySEC), which allows us to do so within 179 countries including the United States.
We still exercise our licensed rights Sir
Therefore we do accept US clients
Hmmm - Since Trading Point’s regulator, CySEC, clears them to do business with US clients; I wonder if the CFTC had a little ‘help’ from Trading Point’s other regulator - the FSA - which has already earned a big 'Thankyou" from the CFTC in their previous investigations? What’s a US-based trader, concerned about control of their funds, to do: avoid FSA-regulated brokers?
I’m also curious as to why the CFTC has not bothered FinFX - perhaps because it might have to deal with their ‘regulator’ - the national government of Finland? Does anyone know if broker-related challenges would actually be dealt with by their government - or is that wishful thinking on my part?
Has anyone had any experience with FINFX? Their margin rates look sexy for Americans…
I’ve been with them for quite a while - no complaints so far.
IMO, they shouldn’t let their live chat support comment on legal matters. There’s no such thing as a “cross-border license”. They were granted a mere CySEC license to service customers (including foreigners) in the company’s place of domicile - the Republic of Cyprus.
Good discussion, guys.
Our [B]List[/B] will need clean-up and updating soon.
How about [B]one week from today[/B] to bring it up to date with all recent changes, and move it to the end of the thread?
Between now and next Wednesday (9.21.11), please post any additions or deletions which you are aware of, so they can be included in the update.
Thanks.
There’s an Unholy Alliance for you: China, North Korea and the CFTC. In some respects, it’s hard to tell them apart.
Well if all they’re operating on is a CySEC license, then I shouldn’t be concerned about the CFTC going after them.