MF Global, FXCM, IronFX, they all held regulations and they all just cheated people and scammed them, IBKP will be the net one as it has already started. these brokers hold regulations known to be strong and again, despite that they steal peoples money! what do regulations do? they get a portion of this money to say that broker is regulated! Basically it does not matter how you handle your business, as long as you pay the regulator a portion of your scamming income they will give you your regulation!
Even the most scammed brokers sometimes do hold some meeting or sometimes answer clients questions to look to be valid but these useless companies, called regulations, those thieves even do not try to scam you they are bully you out of your fund! they do not care about client, they care about having their money! so if you steal 1B dollars, you will be totally fine if you pay about 100k USD! pay that to these useless regulators and you see those useless shameless garbage give you a badge and once they have milked your company enough they toss you out! and we trust these â â â â stains, considering them anything but and scammers?
so you say regulated and not regulated are the same? so how can we know if a broker is valid and how can we put money before we know it?
Might be better worded as âoff-shoreâ regulators are scammers. There is a big difference between US, UK, Australian, etc. regulators versus Caribbean Island regulators.
Some things that need to be appreciated about the regulatory bodies around the world is that their first objective in many cases is to ensure the stable and continuing operation of the financial sector in their jurisdiction.
The companies they regulate may also have to contribute payment annually to cover the regulatorâs costs and of course the first people the regulator talks to about ensuring the stability of the financial sector is the companies themselves.
The regulators are not no-fee lawyers who will sue for you if your broker has breached their contract.
Can you go into more detail please?
Yeah - Just like the âBanking Ombudsmanâ in UK - they are a waste of time and work for and are paid for by the banks. I know from bad experience with a UK bank.
This is correct.
The FXCM case was very different from the others you mentioned. The regulator did its job, there. FXCM were blatant liars, and were banned from being a broker in the US because of it. The public was protected from scammers. A rare story where the regulator did the right thing, and successfully. Nobody lost a penny. Scammers were stopped.
A lot of âregulatorsâ are fake ones, and useless, and paid for by the people they pretend to regulate.
Itâs all really clearly and correctly explained in this post (for those open-minded enough to read it and learn something 
).
You make a good and fair point, of course, and you make it well.
Itâs true that no regulator can prevent a broker from scamming its customers the first time. What they can do, though (and this is a hugely important thing from the customer perspective) is prevent a recurrent pattern of dishonesty like the one displayed by FXCM, by taking action against them.
Which they certainly did.
And nobody can deny that thatâs in the interests of customers and future customers.
(I think theyâre a really bad regulator, actually, but they did the right thing on that occasion.)
But overall, I certainly canât prove to you that regulators ainât scammers and I think a lot of them are.
But anyone whoâs ever worked in the industry at all, in any capacity, or had contact with it through legal or governmental work of any kind related to financial services, will also tell you that there are a few honest regulators, set up in response to public demand and centrally funded, who do their best in a difficult situation, and that as a customer youâre overwhelmingly better off with an account regulated by one of those.
And that does actually cover a lot of brokers. Enough for nobody to need to use a blatantly crooked one.
But youâre right that many regulators are scammers, unfortunately.
I hope the link in the post above this one helps some people, anyway: that was why I posted it. If not, then not - and I do understand that thereâs a small minority of people who really are so anti-regulator that (as Iâve seen it expressed elsewhere in what I thought was good wording) âtheyâd literally rather say goodbye to an account than say hello to a regulator,â and I canât help those people - and neither can anyone else. 
Itâs easy to imagine that youâre learning something when in fact all youâre doing is re-arranging your own prejudices, but some of those people donât want to be helped anyway: they just want to be right. 
If you still try to help them, theyâll either dismiss you or sometimes even attack you, especially if you actually know what youâre talking about from real experience. 
Itâs not easy to prove a negative, is it? 
But it looks like everyone whoâs posted agrees with you that many so-called regulators are fakes and scammers, anyway.
I agree, too.
I havenât heard them called âsubscription service regulatorsâ before, but you and @TheodoreThring are obviously saying exactly the same thing, and in only slightly different words.
I think there are a few real, independent regulators as well, who are funded mostly or entirely by central tax-based sources, who pro-actively inspect brokersâ websites, representations, communications, accounts and so on, and will really come down on them like a ton of bricks if they do much wrong.
I feel much more comfortable using an account regulated by one of those.
Who wouldnât? 
I donât think most of us trust them.
Some of us have learned to distinguish between âreal regulatorsâ (a few) and âfake regulatorsâ (many).
Others donât quite think it through, donât really learn much and just assume that ALL regulators are necessarily scammers.
People learn different things, and they reach different conclusions, even when the same information and evidence are available to anyone who looks for it.
Itâs an interesting and highly relevant issue youâve raised, because it also actually impacts - indirectly - on why some people do manage to learn to trade successfully while others never do at all.
You are fighting in a useless fight; it only consumes your time and energy, and itâs not worthwhile.
Really? I would have thought the strategy is all that matters?
Thatâs probably because you still wrongly imagine youâre actually trading in a market, through a broker. Youâre not. Youâre betting against a counterparty.
This very thread will be extremely helpful to you if you read it (and the posts linked to above) carefully enough. Thereâs much wisdom, above. 
Ok I will dedicate some time today. Appreciate the heads up
Thatâs a heavy post, and I get the frustration, especially if youâve been burned before. Youâre not wrong to be skeptical. Itâs true, regulation isnât a guarantee of safety, and history has shown that even brokers with top-tier licenses have gone rogue or collapsed under mismanagement or fraud.
But hereâs the important distinction: regulation doesnât prevent fraud, it gives you legal recourse when it happens. If an unregulated broker scams you, youâre on your own. If a regulated broker misbehaves, at least thereâs a framework in place â client money segregation, compensation schemes (like FSCS in the UK), and actual accountability.
I read and learned something, thanks.
Iâm starting to think that those of us who live in the EU (maybe apart from Bulgaria/Cyprus/Malta?) are pretty lucky, with no difficulty at all using a properly regulated, safe broker.
Seems like a lot of the world is worse off? Americans have very limited choice and a second-class regulator, Australian brokers (even many of the ASIC-regulated ones?) apparently open offshore, non-ASIC accounts for new customers, (âregulatedâ only in Vanuatu!!), most other parts of the world have only subscription service regulators where the pretend âregulatorâ is a scam just like the pretend âbrokerâ whoâs actually a counterparty?
UK may be the best, from everything I read, then maybe most of the EU - but anywhere else is âdifficultâ?
A friend here has a UK account. I might try that myself, for the FCA regulation, if I ever need another one.
Iâve also seen a couple of people posting here, from other countries, not British and not UK residents, who have accounts in London, so that can obviously be done.
Regulations donât mean a company canât be a scam but they do set rules to protect traders and make things more transparent. Plus, if you do get scammed, having regulations in place gives you a better chance to recover your money.
With all respect, it does not sound very logical to me! firstly FXCM was regulated in the US; then it sounds just too being simple minded to say that only the regulators which your government advertises are fine and other aint!