CFTC Forex Proposal; US Retail Market to Disappear?

Tue, Jan 19 2010, 08:48 GMT
by James Bibbings

Turnkey Trading Partners

On January 13th, 2010 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued a press release regarding its highly anticipated rule proposal for the regulation of retail forex transactions. The proposal seeks to adopt a new regulatory scheme to implement the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008. In particular it strives to address the way the federal agency will deal with off-exchange transactions in foreign currency with the retail public. Currently the CFTC’s proposal is open for public comment for sixty days (60) and was published in the Federal Register on January 7th, 2010. Before anyone can comment though, they’ll have to fully understand what the proposal says.

What the Proposal Attempts to Establish

The following is a summary listing of the major provisions included in the CFTC’s proposal. While reading through these items please note that they are not the only changes to the law which have been proposed. Rather, these items represent what will be the most significant changes to the industry through the eyes of a former regulator and industry professional; they are presented in order of most important to least.

• 1) The CFTC has revised its definition of “commodity interest” (i.e. futures) to include off-exchange retail forex transactions (“forex”). This change grants the CFTC jurisdiction over the United States retail forex market.
• 2) With the authority found in item one above; the CFTC will create new registration categories for retail foreign currency firms as follows:
• A) Dealers (Currently FDM’s) in retail forex transactions will be required to register as retail foreign exchange dealers or (“RFEDs”).
• B) Persons or entities that solicit or accept orders for an RFED, a Futures Clearing Merchant (“FCM”), or an affiliate of an FCM will be required to register as Introducing Brokers (“IBs”).
• C) Persons or entities exercising discretionary authority over accounts will be required to register as Commodity Trading Advisors (“CTAs”).
• D) Persons or entities which operate or solicit funds or property for a pooled investment vehicle would be required to register as Commodity Pool Operators (“CPOs”).
• E) All persons who qualify as being “associated” with the foregoing registration categories will be required to become registered as associated persons (“AP’s).
• 3) All Introducing Brokers (“IBs”) and all applicants working towards registration as IBs in connection with retail forex transactions will be required to enter into a guarantee agreement with an RFED.
• 4) RFEDs and FCMs which engage in retail forex transactions will be required to collect from their customers a security deposit equal to no less than ten percent of the notional value of the retail forex transaction to be conducted; thus imposing a strict 10:1 leverage ratio.

The Implications

Items 1 and 2: Revised Definition of “Commodity Interest”: The definitional change of “Commodity interest” to include off-exchange retail forex transactions gives full authority of the US retail foreign currency market to the CFTC. Based on this definitional adjustment the CFTC will now have the legal ability to require forex professionals to register with the agency. It also means these professionals will be required to become members of a self regulatory organization (“SRO”) which in most instances will be the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Firms will be required to register by law as RFEDs, FCMs, IBs, CTAs, and/or CPOs to solicit for or accept retail customer orders. Many of these firm’s employees will then also be required to become APs and/or business principals.

Item 3: All IB’s Must Be Guaranteed by an RFED: This provision of the proposal is likely to be more devastating to the United States forex industry than any other. The reason? Requiring RFED’s to be entirely liable for the solicitation activity and performance of all their introducing brokers will prove to be impossible. Since there will be no such thing as an independent forex IB, it does not seem reasonable to think that the handful of RFEDs in the United States will be willing to take on the risk of guaranteeing all of the nation’s introducing agents. If they were to do so, the level of liability as well as the capital required to stand behind the performance of such entities would be staggering. Further this requirement completely eliminates the role of an independent IB as it calls for each guaranteed IB to introduce client accounts to only its guarantor RFED. This will greatly reduce consumer and IB strategy options and may also cause clients to open relationships with multiple brokerage houses. For these two reasons, and the requirement discussed below in item 4, third party forex brokerage as it currently exists will be under tremendous stress.

Item 4: Forex Transactions Must Adhere to 10:1 leverage: There has been more written about this portion of the CFTC proposal than any other and perhaps rightfully so. Currently in the US firms are able to offer clients 100:1 leverage, which is already lower than what is available in other parts of the world. At this time US customers appear to be satisfied with security deposit levels which currently reside at either 1% or 4% (by pair traded) of a contracts notional value. Although the CFTC may believe that lowering leverage from 100:1 may be better for clients (which in many cases it will be) I do not believe they have fully considered the ramifications of this action.

It is largely anticipated that in the event leverage in the US is reduced from 100:1 to 10:1 most US accounts will migrate to the United Kingdom. Individual traders have voiced publically that they are unwilling to post higher levels of margin to trade within the United States. Specifically many have shared that as long as well regulated, financially similar, trading venues exist internationally; staying in the US will not make sense with a 10% security deposit. Therefore, if the objective of the CFTC is to protect US investors with their new proposal and this occurs, they may actually be making matters worse. If US clients are encouraged to move their accounts abroad on to pursue higher leverage, the CFTC will then no longer have jurisdiction over the companies handling those accounts and the point will become moot.

In addition to potentially losing jurisdiction over US client monies, should a capital exodus occur on the count of reduced leverage, the CFTC will have also made US RFED’s less competitive internationally. The implications here are far reaching; especially when one considers the size of the global forex market space. Furthermore, reducing leverage by as much as ten times will also drastically reduce off exchange retail currency trading volumes for RFEDs. If this were to occur these firms would likely seek out new forms of revenue in order to supplement falling profit margins. They would likely do so through various fees and/or by additional commissions through wider trading spreads. This too will not be good for the US retail trader or the RFED’s which directly and indirectly create numerous employment opportunities. Worst yet, it is conceivable that an adjustment to the security deposit, especially when coupled with the requirement to guarantee IB’s, might move some RFEDs entirely out of the country.

Options and the Long Road Ahead

Share Your Thoughts: Now that the CFTC proposal exists, what’s next for retail forex traders and brokerage firms within the United States? The first thing that should be done if you’d like to comment on this proposal would be to submit your thoughts to the CFTC and your legislators. The CFTC will accept comments for at least sixty days (60) starting from January 7th, 2010. When sending in a comment it will be important to use the subject “Proposed CFTC Regulation of Retail Forex”; Federal Register - January 7th, 2010. After this be sure to include the proposals identification number which is RIN3038-AC61 in the body of your message.

Industry Professionals: Industry professionals that have not yet registered with the CFTC and elected to become NFA members; now is the time. It is possible that the CFTC may alter some of its proposed amendments if it deems the comments received from the public are reasonable. However, it is highly unlikely that the requirement for all forex professionals to become CFTC registrants and members of a DSRO will be omitted. In just a short period of time every forex firm in the country will be required to register and this will create a massive back log with the NFA. To learn more about this process it would be advisable to contact a regulatory professional and seek advice immediately. Due to the time sensitive nature of this requirement it would also be wise to look for a company that is well versed in forex compliance. Most importantly they should be intimately aware of the CFTC’s current proposal.

Retail Traders: Individuals who trade retail forex will need to consider the implications of having to post as much as ten times more capital to hold trades open. This will materially alter trading strategies and significantly reduce the size of the positions that a person can initiate. Customers should speak with their respective brokerage houses, the CFTC, NFA, and their legislators to let them know how this rule will impact their trading.

Link  

10 to 1 leverage?

Outside that little gem I dont see what the big deal is..just regulation of all parties involved and insurance on funds..

10:1 is not a big deal to you?

Oh thats a huge deal..

Thats why I started out with that part.

Outside that drop in leverage I think the rest seems ok.

At times I got the impression that the Forex pool is muddy and not so safe...if you get my drift.

-I don't always use full lots, but when I do It tends to be very lucrative, and is a huge part of my overall strategy.  I currently have less than 10,000 dollars.

-You aren't worried that the spreads will increase to make up for the loss in revenue by the brokers.

How does this regulation help anyone??

I guess you can get a UK account with forex.com

Well I bet just joining from an outside the US firm isnt going to side step anything either..the firm wont take the risk and let a US customer join and use their software..maybe but I doubt it.

And yeah..10k would only get you one lot and if the US market evaporates or drops then the spreads will widen and volatility will dramatically decrease..

I have the option right now to move my Forex.com account to the UK branch, which will allow up to 400:1 leverage.  But, at 100:1, I feel I have more than enough leverage still (with the money in my account) to continue using the US based branch.

At 10:1, no question I will move to the UK branch.  That article brings up a good point, if this goes through, everyone will move their cash out of the US.  It's a really, stupid idea and goes to show how incompetant the US government is being run.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the damage to US brokers will be done.

Do I feel sorry for you guys in the States.  I'm guessing the a-holes making these rules are worried about ADULTS losing their money or something!  What's next, they gonna limit how many shares of a company you can own?

could someone please explain to me how this benefits anyone? 

Do they think that Forex speculation is what is driving down the USD?

I have no idea how restricting this is going to help anyone. 

Is it just another move by a nanny state that think we cant manage our

money/risk.

I'd like to know the answer to that myself Rick.  It makes no sense, considering how much money will be leaving the country if this goes through and how they will kill the US forex brokerage firms.

Speculation has been driving the price of currency for years, ever since we all went off the gold standard and went to fiat money that was left floating.  So that can't be a reason.

The only thing I can think of is the fact that forex trading is widely considered amongst many investment circles as a sort of legalized casino.  I asked my cousin who has money invested in many stocks about the potential of forex, and he straight told me that it was nothing but a virtual slot machine and he wanted no part in that market.  Most investors think the same way.  So, maybe it's similar the the US gambling bill that prohibits offshore wagering.  Simply another encroachment on to our freedoms.

I'm Canadian, so I'm ok.  I've been more than happy with forex.com, and they have a UK branch, so as I said, I won't be affected, I'll just move my account there.  But for those in the US, your being treated like children.

It wont drive down the USD at all, the  guppy money/aka retail just adds liquidity to other retail traders.

The big boys move these pairs..it might widen the spreads but fundies and banks wont be effected..nor will the movement of any specific pair.

So yet again,  we will have to suffer the extra hassle to move our business overseas, and still be expected to pay 30% on our gains. 

Pretty good Capitalist country

This is all in the event that this passes.

I'm glad you brought this up about the taxes Rick... another thing the guv don't get....  with everyone exiting and going overseas, you will see a ton of tax evasions going on.  The guv will lose out on tax revenue, because it's alot easier to avoid paying taxes when you are earning it from outside the country.  For example there are forex brokers in Switzerland, so why not just keep the cash in Switzerland, and take it out once in while?  How the hell is the US guv gonna be able to figure out where that money came from?  There are plenty of ways to cover your tracks in this scenario.

It never ceases to amaze me just how STUPID the US government really is.  Scary to think they are running everything

The brokerages will offer UK accounts in order to get around these regulations in the event that they pass.  Keep in mind, this is still in it's early stages of development and chances are high that it won't pass from what I am being told by people close to the industry.

good to know prof8t and in the early reports you always get the Doomsday scenario.  I have heard much of the same , and through the grapevine that Think or Swim will not be effected if said 1:10 leverage ever gets put into effect.