ASIC deals massive blow to Australian CFD industry | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Deutsche Bank CFD: Massive Buy 6 replies

Did you know Australian CFD & FX brokers can use your money? 7 replies

Australian Brokers and ASIC 42 replies

Need nsa, fsa or asic regulated broker that accepts liberty reserve 4 replies

FXOpen Investments Pty Ltd is now regulated by ASIC 2 replies

Attachments: ASIC deals massive blow to Australian CFD industry
Exit Attachments

ASIC deals massive blow to Australian CFD industry

  • #1
  • First Post: Sep 4, 2019 11:20pm Sep 4, 2019 11:20pm
ASIC deals massive blow to Australian CFD industry, but is it really that bad?

https://financefeeds.com/asic-deals-...ry-really-bad/

If you can please share your views, it would be greatly appreciated.
  • #2
  • Sep 5, 2019 3:38am Sep 5, 2019 3:38am
Check this thread out....

https://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...=906205&page=5


There has been some discussion going on about this on the thread
  • #3
  • Edited 4:03pm Sep 5, 2019 3:35pm | Edited 4:03pm
i disagree with ASIC and the proposal they ' re making , trying to decrease leverage and taking a similar stance to ESMA

long story short , the overhaul of financial regulation started with the fall of Bear Sterns , Lehman Brothers and the 2008 subprime financial crisis , then it spread to brokers

but retail FX has nothing to do with that financial supervision overhaul and decreasing retail FX and CFD leverage will not add protection but will only kill retail FX , as ESMA did
  • #4
  • Sep 5, 2019 6:24pm Sep 5, 2019 6:24pm
Leverage turns traders into gamblers? I suppose if you're susceptible to sliding into gambling, then the nanny state regulators are here to protect you (from yourself).
But, if your're susceptible to gambling, why not take another gamble on one of the less regulated brokers.
It is a nice gesture when brokers offer high leverage, no one is forcing anyone to use it.
Should we not live in a world where people would have to take responsibility for managing their own risk?
What is next? Don't worry folks, you don't need to use your brain any more, regulators will do your thinking for you. Decision making and risk assessment was vital for mankind evolution, when we stop using these parts of the brain, in a few generations we'll all be a lot stupider for it.
Rant over.
  • #5
  • Edited 8:06pm Sep 5, 2019 7:55pm | Edited 8:06pm
Whilst I am 99% confident ASIC will hold to its 20:1 leverage, I decided to send them my comment on the matter.
Given ASIC are determined to reduce leverage so as to "protect" the vulnerable, I believe the proposal I present is a win:win.

If you wish to add your signature to the same document and send it to ASIC (by Sept 30), feel free.
[email protected]
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2019-09-06_1049.png Size: 93 KB
Attached File(s)
File Type: docx ASIC.docx   15 KB | 712 downloads
  • #6
  • Edited 3:25am Sep 6, 2019 3:11am | Edited 3:25am
Quoting PeterE
Whilst I am 99% confident ASIC will hold to its 20:1 leverage, I decided to send them my comment on the matter. Given ASIC are determined to reduce leverage so as to "protect" the vulnerable, I believe the proposal I present is a win:win. If you wish to add your signature to the same document and send it to ASIC (by Sept 30), feel free.
I propose:
"
As a retail trader, I completely reject ASIC's intended restrictions in the retail sector.
For me, these measures are only restrictions for retail, without any benefit for this group.
I see only pretended reasons to preserve traditional structures (e.g. classical stock exchanges) and their beneficiaries.
In other words, ASIC is trying to prevent, or at least make more difficult, the shift from retail to CFDs that are cheaper for retail.
The attempt to strengthen the operational basis of brokers at the expense of retail can also be assumed.
On the other hand, the protection of retail against losses by restricting leverage is a pretended reason that lacks any basis.
In effect, a retail trader must hold more money with the broker under the desired restrictions in order to realize the same profits, with the result that most traders, since they generally incur losses, will then lose even more money.
What ASIC should do instead:
- leverage should be limited to 100, so that a Negative Balance Protection can still be set up;
- set up a Negative Balance Protection;
- prevent dubious advertising of retail products;
- absolutely ensure that brokers work fairly;
- binary options treat like all other forms of gambling.
"
Return To Disorder
  • #7
  • Sep 6, 2019 3:15am Sep 6, 2019 3:15am
There is no such thing as a "skilled" trader in retail forex.

No trader using leverage above 5 can be considered as "skilled".

Since 99% of all retail traders are addicted gamblers, regulation should adress the behaviour of this group.

If you belong to extremly rare species of "skilled" traders you welcome these regulations.

Retail forex is a negative sum game for losers.
  • #8
  • Sep 6, 2019 3:21am Sep 6, 2019 3:21am
Quoting PeterE
Whilst I am 99% confident ASIC will hold to its 20:1 leverage, I decided to send them my comment on the matter. Given ASIC are determined to reduce leverage so as to "protect" the vulnerable, I believe the proposal I present is a win:win. If you wish to add your signature to the same document and send it to ASIC (by Sept 30), feel free. [email protected] ("[email protected]") {image} {file}

So if you won 100€ in 2 years risking 1€ per trade you should ha e more leverage than someone who won 300.000 taking greater risks. Even if the first does it as hobby and the second is professional.

The 10% drawdown doesn't make sense. I could be risking my whole account in each trade and you don't know if that's even a 1% of my total wealth.
  • #9
  • Sep 6, 2019 3:22am Sep 6, 2019 3:22am
Quoting HudithePfupf
There is no such thing as a "skilled" trader in retail forex. No trader using leverage above 5 can be considered as "skilled". Since 99% of all retail traders are addicted gamblers, regulation should adress the behaviour of this group. If you belong to extremly rare species of "skilled" traders you welcome these regulations. Retail forex is a negative sum game for losers.
LOL

Leverage is a knife, is not bad if you understand how to use it.
  • #10
  • Sep 6, 2019 4:34am Sep 6, 2019 4:34am
Quoting rockit
leverage should be limited to 100,
They arent going to do it. As far as ASIC is concerned the retailer needs protecting, 20:1 is here to stay.

The best angle is to convince them that you dont require their protection, because you can trade,
and so deserve a higher leverage.

Of course any claim you can trade will need to be measured; the metrics determined by ASIC.
  • #11
  • Sep 6, 2019 4:38am Sep 6, 2019 4:38am
Quoting Paintomaker
{quote} So if you won 100€ in 2 years risking 1€ per trade you should ha e more leverage than someone who won 300.000 taking greater risks. Even if the first does it as hobby and the second is professional. The 10% drawdown doesn't make sense. I could be risking my whole account in each trade and you don't know if that's even a 1% of my total wealth.
The means of measuring who gets access to a higher leverage and who doesnt is merely an attempt to get ASIC thinking about the possibility. It isnt intended to be a complete definition.
  • #12
  • Sep 6, 2019 4:52am Sep 6, 2019 4:52am
Quoting HudithePfupf
There is no such thing as a "skilled" trader in retail forex. No trader using leverage above 5 can be considered as "skilled". Since 99% of all retail traders are addicted gamblers, regulation should adress the behaviour of this group. If you belong to extremly rare species of "skilled" traders you welcome these regulations. Retail forex is a negative sum game for losers.
Yes, as I stated "skilled" is subjective.
  • #13
  • Sep 6, 2019 5:53am Sep 6, 2019 5:53am
Quoting Paintomaker
{quote} LOL Leverage is a knife, is not bad if you understand how to use it.
yeahh, and you know it, don't you.

Understand "gambler's ruin" - case closed.
  • #14
  • Edited 9:45pm Sep 7, 2019 8:34pm | Edited 9:45pm
Yeah, great.
I might write a letter to this ASIC guy and propose plebs get no leverage whatsoever. Only traders who have traded a monthly volume of 30 mio or greater for a minimum of 24 consecutive months deserve the privilege to trade with leverage (brokers discretion). That should knock this problem of 'retail traders' on the head.
Try applying for a loan at your local bank, tell them it is for trading Forex on margin.
  • #15
  • Sep 7, 2019 10:11pm Sep 7, 2019 10:11pm
Quoting HudithePfupf
{quote} yeahh, and you know it, don't you. Understand "gambler's ruin" - case closed.
people leave, but this thread will go on for ever
  • #16
  • Edited 8:34am Sep 8, 2019 6:32am | Edited 8:34am
what ASIC seems not to understand , is the fact that there already is a cap on leverage :

brokers offering 500 : 1 will do so only on small accounts , ie max 10000 -- 20000

on bigger accounts they will offer max 100 : 1

and on really big accounts they will offer max 50 : 1 , 30 : 1 , 10 : 1

so what is the point of banning 500 : 1 leverage altogether on all accounts ? that 500 : 1 is just the good tool for traders who know what they ' re doing with their money and with their trading , so much so , that traders already have the option to choose by themselves , whether they want to trade at 10 : 1 or at 500 : 1 leverage , nobody forces them to trade at 500 : 1 , they can switch to a lower leverage as they please

the best thing ASIC would do , would be to just leave things as they now are , and maybe get some proper education on trading before trying to regulate what they know nothing about

sorry ASIC , no offense intended , but you should really brush up your trading courses and maybe get some first-hand trading experience too , because quite likely , none of you has ever traded the markets
  • #17
  • Sep 8, 2019 1:13pm Sep 8, 2019 1:13pm
When USA limited leverage to 50:1.. I was very disappointed.. but was amazed by the "free trading market" in EU... until rather RECENTLY.. when they did it WORSE, limiting 30:1, and that was not their target level at all, they settled at this for now... I then searched and found that AU(stralia) still offers 500:1 for example. Was very happy that at least some (major) country from "first world" has this option... But now this... It looks like ASIA is now our last resort... and some exotic places...
At least until they ban citizens from "first world" to trade anywhere else...

I have no problem with "protecting people" but I do not like this being excuse to restrict people to have a chance... They could protect people in another way and not to take the tools/potential from everyone!

Not so sure about Russia, they seemed to exploit mistake of other countries so I am amazed they do not offer 500:1 etc.. to attract the traders.. Or they do?
I think they limit to 50:1 also?
Can you afford to take that chance?
  • #18
  • Sep 8, 2019 6:23pm Sep 8, 2019 6:23pm
We are in the last decade of Forex, there will be further cuts to leverage worldwide. That will dead it off finally.

In 2008 most brokers would state "95% of clients lose money".

In 2019 its more like 75% and some of the PoP brokers be around 65%.

More people are winning I recon 2% of retail are consistent, where 10yrs ago less than 1% nearer to 0.
I know a retail trader regularly executing 200 mln in daily volume around $5-6k in commissions.

We live in a class based hierarchical society, I truly believe all this is to do with old money trying to shut down new threats.
, they have to raise barriers to entry, only vetted employees of FCA regulated Institutions will be able to trade.

I've got 2 professional accounts, so I'm fine. But also planning my exit strategy (Stocks and Futures).
All Assets NAS100 GLD BTC AUS JPY GBP All Time Return: 19.5%
  • #19
  • Sep 8, 2019 6:33pm Sep 8, 2019 6:33pm
Quoting Phil_GMT
We are in the last decade of Forex, there will be further cuts to leverage worldwide. That will dead it off finally. In 2008 most brokers would state "95% of clients lose money". In 2019 its more like 75% and some of the PoP brokers be around 65%. More people are winning I recon 2% of retail are consistent, where 10yrs ago less than 1% nearer to 0. I know a retail trader regularly executing 200 mln in daily volume around $5-6k in commissions. We live in a class based hierarchical society, I truly believe all this is to do with old money trying to...
you are right phil , maybe another excus for brokes to pick up some accounts
people leave, but this thread will go on for ever
  • #20
  • Sep 8, 2019 7:56pm Sep 8, 2019 7:56pm
Australia is a full bore communist mafia police state. Every time someone makes some money, the government commissars want to steal it.

Having said that, if you have $USD100K in your account, you should only trade about 8 standard lots. Therefore at 20:1 leverage you’ll have a maximum deposit of $40K on 8 lots. However, it should be a minimum of 33:1 leverage.

This just means more money will flow out of commie Australia.
0 traders viewing now