Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Proposed Rule 75 FR 3281

  • From: Mark Krier
    Organization(s):

    Comment No: 2963
    Date: 1/22/2010

    Comment Text:

    i0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-02963
    From:
    Sent:
    To:
    Subject:
    Mark Krier
    Friday, January 22, 2010 6:59 PM
    secretary
    Regulation of Retail Forex
    In regards to the CFTC's proposed rule on Forex, I would like to know if the CFTC is blatantly
    disregarding the interests of the American consumer and the American economy, or if rather the CFTC
    is simply that ignorant to lack the ability to comprehend the Forex industry. I would hope it is a case of
    ignorance, as ignorance is treatable, but I am worried that the CFTC will refuse to admit its faults and
    mistakes with the rule proposal. If you bring any retail Forextrader to the table, you will find that the
    proposed 10:1 leverage is NOT what they want. Not only is it NOT what they want, but no one can
    even understand how the CFTC is possibly claiming to be addressing the "problems" of the industry
    with this proposal. If you [CFTC] want to address the "problems" of the industry, go after the bucket
    shops that cold-call the 75 year old retired war veteran and get him to "invest" his life savings in the
    EUROdollar/USdollar and then turn around and run away with his money. These types of bucket shops
    don't operate with any regulator, any regulated entity, and do not answer to any authorities. Do not,
    instead, try to make rules to limit (let's be honest, BAN) the Forex firms who run legitimate businesses,
    hold 20+ million dollars in net capital, are audited annually by the NFA, and have their staff registered
    with the CFTC. It sounds to me like the CFTC is just simply trying to put a rule in place so that when a
    Congressman calls the CFTC and says, "Why am I hearing from some poor old man who lost all his
    money in a Forex investment scheme?", the CFTC can say, "Well, we tried to get rid of all the Forex
    firms in the US back in 2010 with that rule proposal, but you guys turned it down". No! Because
    illegitimate FOREX fraud cases have NOTHING to do with the CFTC registered and NFA member Forex
    firms. If you're a part of the legitimate Forex industry, you know exactly what I mean. If you're a
    Congressman, or just a general US citizen reading this comment, THEN DON'T LET THE CFTC PULL THE
    WOOL OVER YOUR EYES. Don't let them kill an industry, kill thousands of US jobs, and throw away
    millions of dollars in valuable American, home-grow revenue - all to be swooped up by the rest of the
    world, just so they can protect themselves from scrutiny when people get ripped off by fraudsters who
    mention the word "currency" in their sales pitch. Getting rid of registered Forex firms will not get rid
    of fraudster investment schemes that have anything to do with Forex. If you're reading this, and you
    work for the CFTC, then please just take a step back, take a true look at the industry, and make a very
    careful consideration as to how to rewrite this rule. If you want to know how the rule SHOULD read,
    here goes: "ALL FOREX FIRMS, SOLICITORS, INTRODUCERS, ADVISORS, SALESPEOPLE, ETC., NEED TO
    BE REGISTERED WITH THE CFTC AND NEED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE NFA. If you are providing
    services and/or doing business in the retail foreign currency market in any capacity, and aren't
    registered with the CFTC, and aren't members of the NFA, or aren't cooperating with their efforts,
    then you will be SOUGHT
    AFTER, FOUND,
    and SHUT
    DOWN." As simple as that. Everything else from
    there would be a relative formality, considering the NFA has already exerted significant effort and
    resources creating a competent and legitimate set of rules and standards in the industry.
    If the CFTC reads this and still wants to suggest that the rule (specifically, the 10:1 leverage) is in any
    way necessary, then please do. If you can back that up, to any degree, with fact or empirical
    evidence/research than we (the American public) would certainly like to hear it. Lastly, I would like to
    challenge the CFTC, publicly, to bring forth one industry expert who can explain how and why the
    proposed 10:1 leverage would increase the protection of any American citizen or business. For everyi0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-02963
    one person you bring forth in favor of 10:1 leverage, I will bring forth one hundred against it. AND
    THAT IS A PROMISE!!!
    Respectfully Trying To Keep Faith in our Government and our Leaders,
    Mark Krier
    Forex Trader