Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-01947
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stawick, David
Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:54 PM
secretary
FW: STRONGLY OBJECT TO 10-1 LEVERAGE LIMIT IN REGULATION OF
RETAIL FOREX PROPOSAL RIN 3038-AC61
From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:23 PM
To:
secretary
C¢: Stawick, David; Smith, Thomas J.; Bauer, Jennifer; Penner, William; Cummings, Christopher W.; Sanchez,
Peter
Subject:
Re: STRONGLY OBJECT TO 10-1 LEVERAGE LIMIT IN REGULATION OF RETAIL FOREX PROPOSAL RIN
3038-AC61
Importance: High
Re: STRONGLY OBJECT TO 10-1 LEVERAGE LIMIT IN REGULATION OF RETAIL
FOREX PROPOSAL RIN 3038-AC61
Attn : David Stawick, Secretary and ALL CFTC policymakers re: RIN 3038-AC61
As a non-affiliated US-based Retail FX trader, please note for the record that I am STRONGLY
OPPOSED to the 10-1 leverage limit as proposed in RIN 3038-AC61 relating to the Regulation of Retail
Forex. (100-1 is the correct level.)
Counter-productive effects
This senseless limit would in NO way protect, aid or benefit me but rather would greatly harm me since
this restriction, if passed,
1. wouM require that I submit substantially more margin-funds into non-protected, non-FDIC
insured, non-SIPC eligible accounts, actually exposing me to increased risk in the event of
bankruptcy of my Forex Broker.
2. wouM NOT divert my business into regulated-Futures trading (as the CFTC is probably hoping),
but rather wouM cause me to seek an unreliable, higher-risk offshore FX broker to trade through,
whose practices might be questionable.
3. wouM HARM & DIMINISH my abifity to adequately diversify & protect my entire investment
portfofio. If I need to use substantially more margin-funds for Forex, I will have less money to
allocate into other instruments (stocks, bonds, commodities (gold, oil) cash, real-estate, etc..), I
will be LESS well-diversified and therefore I will have even more risk.
Socially Useless - Nanny not needed
I do not want the CFTC to treat me like a child and dictate how I should trade. While 100-1 leverage isi0-001
COMMENT
CL-01947
available to me - should I choose it - I am never forced to use it.
Automobile speed limits are socially beneficial because they may reduce or prevent property damage &
physical harm to the driver, passengers and many innocent others all around. THIS pointless limitation,
however, addresses only a victimless, non-existent, voluntarily self-imposed []phantom [] risk.
Lower FX vols require far greater leverage
FX volatilities are generally substantially lower than in the Equities or Futures market. Therefore,
substantially more leverage is required simply to capture equivalent trading opportunities.
Slippery-Slope Absurdity
If client loss-prevention is your aim, then consistency dictates that you also ban trend-following trading
strategies since a strong argument can be made that this will prevent more customer losses than your 10-
1 leverage-limitation proposal. Is the absurdity of your proposal obvious yet?
I am very concerned because ever since Congress empowered the CFTC to rule-make in Forex via the
Farm-Bill, it's as though you've been given a huge ray-gun with no idea how to use it so you're just
shooting anything & everything in sight... To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Worse even is the fact that, to my understanding, none of you even actually trade Forex or have ever
done so. How can you undertake to regulate what you don [] t even understand or appreciate?
Unfortunately, with this (and other ill-conceived proposals) you have greatly damaged the very
credibility of the CFTC.
The bottom line is that OTC Retail Forex trading is NOT Futures trading. Please do not try to treat it as
such.
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY STRIKE YOUR PROPOSED 10-1 LEVERAGE LIMITATIONS.
Leave 100-1 leverage intact.
Please remain focused ONLY on pursuing anti-fraud provisions and crime
prevention, as per your congressional mandate.
Don []t let proposal RIN 3038-AC61 become an expensive lesson in unintended consequences [].
Thank you.
Bill Mcmahon
New Jersey
