Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-01584
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cutshaw
Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:00 AM
secretary
'Regulation of Retail Forex' in the subj ect line of your message and the
identification number RIN 3038-AC61
RE: identification number RIN 3038-AC61
The referenced 10:1 leverage consideration is both ridiculous and highly
irritating.
Does the CFTC plan to do the same to commodity futures? Or, what about the
leverage that stock options possess? Shouldn't we regulate THAT also? And
what else can we regulate?
Good grief, stay out of our business and do your job. Was it the retail
forex sector that has given the economy so much trouble the past couple
years? I have an idea - how about WORKING on the regulation of credit
swaps?? Come to think of it, why don't you LEAVE the private citizens and
their trading ALONE and FOCUS on the larger institutions that can present
FAR more problems for everyone concerned than the solitary independent
American trading on his home PC.
Or could it be that the CFTC and those who lead it are far too influenced by
the institutional investors than to ever muck about with the way THEY trade?
If you think you're 'protecting' the retail investor by this kind of
regulation -- thanks but no thanks. Protect me from the institutional
mega-investors, and any illegal practices in the marketplace, but don't you
DARE attempt to protect me from myself. There may be a host of featherheads
who crave this type of 'protection' from their government, but there are FAR
MORE of us who will, and do, take responsibility for our own actions. Again,
just stay out of our way.
You so much as even ACT like you're serious about passing this drivel, and
that "giant sucking sound" will be the noise that all that money makes as it
leaves CFTC-controlled US forex accounts on its way to overseas brokerages.
Darrell Cutshaw
850-501-5088
