CALL TO ACTION: CFTC 10:1 - Share what you wrote here

Not open for further replies.


My 2 cents;

RIN 3038-AC61

Mr. David Stawick, Secretary Commodity
Futures Trading Commision 1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20581

Dear Mr. Stawick,

The proposal to limit leverage to 10:1 is regulatory overkill and a better solution is to have any retail customer submit a written confirmation document stating they have read the CFTC/NFA literature describing the mechanics and risks of forex to the forex broker opening an account.

Regulation needs to eliminate the unscrupulous brokers and let the people grow up by taking the necessary risks without criminal interference.

This regulation will not control but rather supress the level of democratic fiscal activity in a market with so much potential to educate and support many citizens of the world.

It is risk that creates wealth to the extent we all find necessary to live a self-sufficient life.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Chris Hoogendijk


From MB Trading FX

Dear MB Trading FX Client,

On January 13, 2010, the CFTC announced proposed new regulations concerning retail foreign currency transactions. Many of the proposed changes would implement important consumer protection regulations, which MB Trading firmly favors. However, one of the proposed changes would radically lower Forex leverage from 100:1 to 10:1 for all NFA and CFTC regulated Forex firms.

Under the proposed rule, here are some examples based on trading 10,000 USD:

Currency Pair Current Margin Requirements* Proposed Margin Requirements
EUR/USD $142 $1,420
GBP/USD $163 $1,630
USD/JPY $100 $1,000

*Current margin requirements based on rates as of January 19th, 2010

The impact of these new requirements for a FOREX trader could be significant. Under existing rules and based on present day exchange rates, a $10,000 account could buy or short just over 700,000 EURUSD. With the new proposed rule, the same account would only be able to buy or short 70,000 EURUSD, significantly impacting the results of the trade.

MB Trading recognizes the importance of regulation that strengthens industry oversight. We agree with policing and regulating the industry, as was Congress' intent when empowering the CFTC to create additional rules. However, we don't agree with policies that might clearly disadvantage firms in the United States which in turn disadvantage you, the client. We encourage you to voice your individual opinion directly to the CFTC. The Public Comment Period is open for 60 days from the date of publication, which was January 13, 2010. You may find the entire draft proposal here: www.CFTC.Gov and you may contact the CFTC directly by sending an email to with "Regulation of Retail Forex" in the subject line.

Thank you for your support.

Ross Ditlove
MB Trading

Explore the
MB Trading Difference:

Unique ECN for FOREX, award-winning stock trading technology, and 24-hr support, all at low commissions:


$2.95 per
100,000 USD traded


$4.95 per trade
up to 10,000 shares


$0.95 per contract
plus exchanged fees


$0.95 per contract
No minimum

Want to know more about
MB Trading?
Visit our website.

You are receiving this email because you have a live account with MB Trading or have signed up for a Demo of our software. If you would no longer like to receive these emails, please click here: Unsubscribe me from this contact list.


Securities products are offered through MB Trading, member FINRA, SIPC. MB Trading Futures, Inc. (MBTF) is CFTC registered FCM and member of NFA. MBTF offers execution and settlement services for futures based products, as well as offer off-exchange foreign currency (FOREX) products through MB Trading. Trading in futures, options and forex is speculative in nature and not appropriate for all investors. investors should only use risk capital when trading futures, options and forex because there is always the risk of substantial loss. Account access, trade executions and system response may be adversely affected by market conditions, quote delays, system performance and other factors.

MB Trading | 1926 E. Maple Ave | El Segundo, CA 90245

MB Trading - Stocks Options Futures Forex Online Discount Trading | 866.628.3001

I never expected this to happen in this country: The state to run my own business. Get the F***En gov off my back.
Last edited by a moderator:


My email and the response I received.

Your submission has been received by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Please be advised that this acknowledgement does not constitute either Commission approval of the subject proposal or a determination that the proposal is consistent with the Act and the regulations thereunder.

From: Raymond []
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:23 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Regulation of Retail Forex

Please add my voice to the chorus of those saying "NO" to the proposed new leverage requirements. 10 to 1 in insufficient for any type profit except for those with extemely large pocket books.

Thank you,

Raymond Kossa


2010 is just a start

I am aware of such changes , many firms in US do not allow leverage
greater than 1 / 100 , let me put this way even if accounts move out from US firms to others , think about it how the market looks like on a day off in the US , holiday , Market is very very slow , Guess large accounts will be players , others will follow.
On the other hand many hedgers screwed up financial markets big times and in fact we all pay now , this is the painful fact


USA is a free country

USA is a free country, I really don't think a lot of limits on people will work, so don't that please, CFTC.


My letter to the CFTC


Re: RIN 3038-AC61

It has come to my attention that proposed regulation may have made a bad situation worse. The most shocking proposal is:

"to collect security deposits in a minimum amount in order to prudentially limit the leverage to their customers on such transactions at 10 to 1."

I, as a taxpayer and a govt. contractor (in Iraq), have a serious problem with this so-called "safety" regulation. The way I see it, this will only continue the economical bleeding of the US economy. In so doing, this will cause many investors...both small and pull their funds out of any/all US Forex brokers and taking their accounts overseas. Doing so will cause many small/medium Forex brokers to either reduce staff, increase fees, or go out of business. This will also increase the unemployment rate, which is already high within the financial world.

Not saying that I would consider evading my income from the IRS, but since most overseas brokerages do not offer 1099's, this will require more labor/time/money from IRS agents to track these overseas investors to recoup taxes, who choose not to report said income.

Bottom line: We all already are warned by each Forex Brokerages about the leveraged risk we take with our own funds. Let us take this risk!!! If we loose our funds, we only have ourselves to blame. Stop treating us like babies and let us take responsibility for our own actions

David Bilyeu
Forex Investor
Kansas...via Iraq


regarding usa finance regulator's future plans

i am ust another litle trader among others,
and i can asure whoever is held responsible for tose future propositions that it would be a death blow to us reatil traders.
i hold my acounts in the uk but those issues concern me nevertheless. i cannot and would surely not be able to trade with 1:10 leverage as my sculping startegies requiers at least 1:100. i m glad my funds arent invested at the us.

please avoid those proposed steps. YOUR OB IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT, like any other public entity. dont do in purpose something which would be harmfull.
Dear sir or madam,

The proposed new rule does not protect investors. It will do the opposite, because an investor will now have to risk 10 times the amount as before to place the same trade.

Please, please do not pass this proposed new rule!!!!

If this proposed new rule is passed, it will just, once again, prove that our government is run by incompetents.

Thank you for your attention,
Christina Fortunato
Flushing, NY

Nathan Wyss

My Response to the Proposed Leverage Reduction

RE: RIN 3038-AC61

Attention David Stawick,

I am writing you to express my extreme disapproval of the proposed rule changes you want to make to retail FOREX trading. I cannot imagine the real reason you want to do this. I assume you are telling people the reason is you want to make it safer for the average person to trade FOREX by lowering the available leverage, thus, in theory, lowering the maximum amount of money one can lose while trading. While it may be true that there are citizens of the U.S. who do not understand the concept of leverage well enough to be trading, yet these people trade anyway and many of them lose money. Where do I start on why this plan is so wrong?

1. People who trade without fully understanding leverage will lose money because they most likely do not understand how to be a successful trader. Leverage is just one small piece of the pie. Even if you lower leverage to 10:1, and they some how still have enough money to fund their accounts to trade at that leverage, they will still lose their money for a million other reasons.

2. Taking away my freedoms and all other traders' freedoms to protect people who should not be trading in the first place is anti-capitalist and anti-american. It's the equivalent of prohibiting stores from selling sharp knives because once in a while some one cuts themselves by behaving irresponsibly.

3. Traders will be more likely to experience more margin calls at 10:1 leverage than 100:1 leverage for the simple fact that most retail traders do not have $100,000 to fund an account with to trade the same way they were trading at 100:1 leverage with a $10,000 account. This new rule would punish many currently responsible and profitable traders because of this issue.

4. You would take away the main income and side income of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands Americans by stripping them of their ability to trade they way they are trading right now. Not only would traders lose their income, but brokers would go out of business, or at best downsize, due to the sudden lack of business and thousands of people would be put directly out of work.

5. Some traders may move their accounts off shore to continue to trade. But the mass reduction in trading will impact the markets' behavior and could render many trading systems ineffective. Traders would only figure this out after many consecutive losses. That translates into lost money, as well as the lost time and effort developing those now useless trading systems.

In the first paragraph I said I cannot imagine the real reason you want to make these rule changes, specifically the leverage reduction. I say this because these 5 points I mentioned above are quite obvious. I doubt you rode the short bus to school while wearing a helmet. I'll bet you are of above average intelligence. I'd also bet you realize the impact of reducing the maximum leverage in retail trading would be catastrophic to the industry, at least in the US. Much like the "First In First Out" rule, the reduced leverage does nothing to help us retail traders. Unlike the "First In First Out" rule, which is reduced to an annoyance by clever work-arounds, reduced leverage will most likely destroy my ability, along with countless other traders' ability, to continue trading.

What is the real reason you want to reduce leverage? Do you have even one letter or email to support this rule change? Who exactly supports this rule change and why?


Nathan Wyss
Not open for further replies.