Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-04027
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:44 AM
secretary
Public Comment Form
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
([email protected]) on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 09:44:26
commenter_subject: Regulation of Retail Forex
commenter_frdate: January 20, 2010
commenter_frpage: 75FR3281
commenter_comments: I strongly object to your proposal to reduced
margin requirement from 100:1 to 10:1. Forex
trading is very different from stock trading. The
daily fluctuations in currencies are much less than
those of stocks. In a Forex trade the net cost to
the trader is zero; the margin just protects the
brokerage firm from losses. All firms have
automatic protection in place. In addition a lot of
traders perform Forex hedging operations where only
a small margin is needed. If the 10:1 margin
requirement where to become law many trader would
move their trades to foreign Companies where the
100:1 would still be in place. Many of these
foreign Companies are not regulated and the
deposits by the traders might be in jeopardy. Not
so long ago a number of firms had a 400:1 margin
requirement. I agree that such a low margin is
dangerous for both trader and brokerage firm. The
current 100:1 is a reasonable compromise and allows
most traders a satisfactory trading environment.
commenter name: Peter Fontana
commenter withhold address on: ON
commenter addressl: 217 Fiddlers Point Drive
commenter_city: St. Augustine
commenter state: FLi0-001
COMMENT
CL-04027
commenter zip: 32080
commenter fax: 904-471-4299
commenter~hone: 904-501-5930
