I agree on that but still if you want to invest in more assets you should also be able to afford it and not rely only on that your broker will lend you more money which you can risk. Of course if you are trading with market maker you can get 1:1000 without problems as market makers don’t care if you are account goes in minus as this will generate more profit for them and they don’t have to pay money to a third party.
I believe trading should not be consider as “How much will I lose if you lose everything” but as “How to manage effectively my invested money (without risking it all) to make more money”. If you want to trade 0,50 lots (50 000 units) of EURUSD with 10 pips SL for example, with 200$ and 1:400 you are risking 25% of your balance on one trade.
That’s right but loosing $50 on a $200 account is not like loosing $50 on $2000 account. On $200 it means that you don’t control your risk and on $2000 – that you are using appropriate risk management.
Is there a difference if you lose $1000 on broker or $1000 on 5 brokers with $200 each?
I agree on that as an option but IMO more than 2 brokers at the same time makes no sense to me if I only have $1000 available for trading. And why would you trade with malevolent Broker at first place?
True that! But if you don’t have the capital to afford opening bigger lots (on single trade or with more smaller trades), don’t act like you do by relaying on the leverage.
PS: I am not arguing. Different people have different points of view and different understandings