Anomilus
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 39
I don't know where I was getting at with the inverse sarcasm paradox comment, but wait for it...
Dodd-Frank had it right. Against all sanity, I really do mean that. The really horrible part about it, is that the only real thing they messed up were the ridiculous measures aimed at retail trading. Meaning the small guy max leverage reductions to 50:1 and increased margin requirements.
Even with the obvious validity of my last statement, I must sound absolutely crazy by now. But truly, if you think that bill is bad for you as a trader, you're crazy. With the amount of threads dedicated to scams and scam brokers, the restrictions of US traders to trade within the big 50 were spot on, with all you scam victims in mind. The only part of this bill that stinks is the sections aimed at retail trade. After all, this was legislation brought on by the near collapse of financial markets, due to negligent oversight of leverage used by institutional banking.
We all hate this bill and I think it has gotten an unfair shake despite the annoyances it brings for the little guy. If we all actually never tried to get around this as US traders and instead would have obeyed it, the scam section of this forum would definitely be a bit thin on volume compared to what it is now.
I was joking. Dodd-Frank is a sum total of s*** legislation, a dash of "too little, too late", and a pinch of f*** the little guy. I stand by that. However, dreaming that Dodd-Frank will one day be repealed is pure fantasy. There is too much political capital behind it, and it would never gain the bipartisan support that is essential to have it removed.
We've been going about it the wrong way. It's just an opinion but I think this is what we as US traders should focus on having amended if we aim to really get back to trading as normal, like the good ole days. The leverage and increased margin should have never been stipulated to apply to retail. Retail could never in its' wildest dream pose a threat to any financial market, of any kind. The risk is only to the trader, not the system. If I could trade even 200:1 max, with relevant/reasonable margin requirements, I would gladly, and willingly too; trade within the big 50 with a CFTC/NFA regulated broker. This is plain to anyone caught up in this web of lies. Pools of brokers that not even the most intelligent person exercising all diligence and caution could possibly detect coming and going out of business. It's become a senseless chore to find a few who work, and then flush themselves down the toilet. To the dismay of many reading, some even do it by design. Ugh.
I think that this forum, and a few others like it have the membership it could take to focus on amending the retail sections of Dodd-Frank. There are also representatives of many reputable, US regulated brokers here who also should be advocating, along with us. Especially since many of those brokers have direct relationships with the regulatory bodies. If their aim is to keep us from being defrauded of investments and provide a 'safe' environment for market participants, it is also in your interests and the regulators to help remedy this problem.
I'm just a petty member. I am tired of the run around and uncertainty. I seriously think it would be easier and more practical to just move to some other country rather than scour the web and reviews endlessly only to remain unsure and insecure about what broker I am going to be forced to take a chance with to get around these senseless requirements.
Any addition, subtraction, on the topic of possibly amending Dodd-Frank would be great. I hope after a decent conversation, the upper echelon of this forum (FPA), and the US broker representatives in this forum would sign petitions to the respective US brokers they are present in this forum to represent in order to get a wide range of support from customers and the industry leading brokers here in the US to support this amendment for retail trading.
If I am living in fantasy land with this idea, I don't mind being told that, but I firmly believe in not telling ourselves no. We should try, the brokers should try, the forums that are trying relentlessly to help protect us from bad brokers and phantom brokerages should try.
Thanks.
Dodd-Frank had it right. Against all sanity, I really do mean that. The really horrible part about it, is that the only real thing they messed up were the ridiculous measures aimed at retail trading. Meaning the small guy max leverage reductions to 50:1 and increased margin requirements.
Even with the obvious validity of my last statement, I must sound absolutely crazy by now. But truly, if you think that bill is bad for you as a trader, you're crazy. With the amount of threads dedicated to scams and scam brokers, the restrictions of US traders to trade within the big 50 were spot on, with all you scam victims in mind. The only part of this bill that stinks is the sections aimed at retail trade. After all, this was legislation brought on by the near collapse of financial markets, due to negligent oversight of leverage used by institutional banking.
We all hate this bill and I think it has gotten an unfair shake despite the annoyances it brings for the little guy. If we all actually never tried to get around this as US traders and instead would have obeyed it, the scam section of this forum would definitely be a bit thin on volume compared to what it is now.
I was joking. Dodd-Frank is a sum total of s*** legislation, a dash of "too little, too late", and a pinch of f*** the little guy. I stand by that. However, dreaming that Dodd-Frank will one day be repealed is pure fantasy. There is too much political capital behind it, and it would never gain the bipartisan support that is essential to have it removed.
We've been going about it the wrong way. It's just an opinion but I think this is what we as US traders should focus on having amended if we aim to really get back to trading as normal, like the good ole days. The leverage and increased margin should have never been stipulated to apply to retail. Retail could never in its' wildest dream pose a threat to any financial market, of any kind. The risk is only to the trader, not the system. If I could trade even 200:1 max, with relevant/reasonable margin requirements, I would gladly, and willingly too; trade within the big 50 with a CFTC/NFA regulated broker. This is plain to anyone caught up in this web of lies. Pools of brokers that not even the most intelligent person exercising all diligence and caution could possibly detect coming and going out of business. It's become a senseless chore to find a few who work, and then flush themselves down the toilet. To the dismay of many reading, some even do it by design. Ugh.
I think that this forum, and a few others like it have the membership it could take to focus on amending the retail sections of Dodd-Frank. There are also representatives of many reputable, US regulated brokers here who also should be advocating, along with us. Especially since many of those brokers have direct relationships with the regulatory bodies. If their aim is to keep us from being defrauded of investments and provide a 'safe' environment for market participants, it is also in your interests and the regulators to help remedy this problem.
I'm just a petty member. I am tired of the run around and uncertainty. I seriously think it would be easier and more practical to just move to some other country rather than scour the web and reviews endlessly only to remain unsure and insecure about what broker I am going to be forced to take a chance with to get around these senseless requirements.
Any addition, subtraction, on the topic of possibly amending Dodd-Frank would be great. I hope after a decent conversation, the upper echelon of this forum (FPA), and the US broker representatives in this forum would sign petitions to the respective US brokers they are present in this forum to represent in order to get a wide range of support from customers and the industry leading brokers here in the US to support this amendment for retail trading.
If I am living in fantasy land with this idea, I don't mind being told that, but I firmly believe in not telling ourselves no. We should try, the brokers should try, the forums that are trying relentlessly to help protect us from bad brokers and phantom brokerages should try.
Thanks.