Usa Resitents

I'll answer if you answer my question . . . .

What is Google . . . ? ? ?

Learn some better Google skills . . . . NFA Read Here

Any

Anyways THANKS FOR YOUR GREAT INFO,,,///

Since the recession the usa implemented so many strict rules on financial institutions wishing to solicit american clients. Instead of undergoing the strenous steps to be compliant many affected(usa based) companies simply kick out americans so they can continue as they were without having legal action taken against them.

Thanks Tony This Would Help Me Understand It Better .... :-D

It's the Americans trying to protect themselves from foreign competition.

http://www.nfa.futures.org/nfamanual/NFAManual.aspx

Notice how the NFA charges Forex dealers.

(This is my take on it but I am not an expert) If Americans want to deal with UK brokers (which are more secure) they can't anymore by international agreement. The UK brokers are more secure because they have mandatory segregated funds. If the broker goes bust, assets which are not currently being traded are held securely in an account which the broker can't use to pay any debts. And of course the higher the leverage you use the lower your risk to this sort of event. My account leverage is set to the max (500:1).

These new NFA rules, which they claim are for our protection, are a total pain. First-in-First-out for example would be a misery for my trading method. I always trade last in first. out.

Tho I reside within the US. The feeling I've generated toward the NFA's rules are A) They want to protect big banks against up-coming good American retail traders. B) They want to protect American bad retail traders against foreign competition.

A) For point a, they seem to adopt rules which makes no-sense. And most of these things are Totally Optional to begin with.

What the hell is First-In-First-Out suppose to protect a retail client against. Interest rates on the older order? Forgetting He had an old position open? What. How does this save him money? I can only conclude that it's because they don't want Him trading with certain formation which could take money out of the big boys pocket.

No-Hedging another optional gambit. No-one forces you to hedge your position in Forex. Matter of fact there's an entire market segment based on this premise called Hedge-Fund. No other currency pair would/could create your hedge position 100% except the same pair because it's the only one which will have a 100% correlation. This could be an attractive option for someone wanting to sit upon a position until it turns around but really don't know when it's going to turn around.

50:1 Leverage. Does the NFA not realize that they're retail traders and don't have 100k+ to invest? Instead of providing some education about leverage, they decided it's OK to trade if you can borrow<less. Most retail traders, trading MT4 the free-most popular platform are 100$ traders. There's no additional risks to the money they deposit, if they use 1000:1 leverage, they're never going to end up going into debt because a weekend position went badly against them (or whatever). However the 50:1 leverage are like shackles which prevents them from building any real-money anytime soon as they're limited to Nano lot-sizes. If the trader is good, he could make 10k in decent time, if he's a bad-trader, he'll just lose his 100 bucks.

B) Sad as it may sound. I really don't think US Retail Forex traders have mature to the level of the rest of the world's retail forex traders. Look at the Russians and automated trading. Look at the British and their Forex structures. Even the Aussies. We're still trying to Suppress and be Pampered here. Yeah sure I understand that there were allot of Scam Forex brokers out there a few years ago looking to take the money and run. But also I believe (just from my time on this forum) people don't follow directions. They don't read the manual nor learn what they're dealing with before they jump in. Then, when they learn the Hard way, their first reaction is that someone should have told them --- or give them their money back.

This is one of the reasons I don't "Code EA for other people for a Fee" nor "Would I trade a dime even for my Mother". When they have Buyer's remorse, they'll go running to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam gets fed up and slap both parties on the wrist. Or more like throw the baby out with the bath water. My experience from Blackjack to Trading have the the exact same theme. When allot of people are telling you don't do... that wouldn't work... or thats a sucker's bet ... especially when it's coming from the House, you should be thinking about doing the exact opposite (or at least ask why). Most of the time it's because the Employee themselves (in this case NFA) don't understand what the hell is going on. As the result they call the the so-called experts to advise them (big banks). The advisors in turn give some non-sense like hedge, no-stoploss, leverage as the reason to blame.

In conclusion, the NFA does-not give me any new options. They just make the options I already had obvious. Thanks for nothing.