Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-04360
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Scott Greer
Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:47 PM
secretary
Stawick, David ; Smith, Thomas J.
; Bauer, Jennifer ; Penner, William
; Cummings, Christopher W.
; Sanchez, Peter
RIN 3038-AC61 relating to the Regulation of Retail Forex.
Attn : David Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and ALL CFTC policymakers:
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 R1N 3038-AC61 relating to the Regulation of
Retail Forex.
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,
would 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.
would NOT divert my business into regulated-Futures trading (as the CFTC is probably hoping),
but rather would cause me to seek an unreliable, higher-risk offshore FX broker to trade through,
whose practices might be questionable.
would eliminate one of the greatest benefits of trading Forex : My ability to efficiently deploy my
own trading capital in the way that I choose.
Lower FX vols require far greater leverage
FX volatilities are generally substantially lower than in the Equities or Futures market. Therefore,
significantly more leverage is required simply to capture equivalent trading opportunities.
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 is
available to me - should I choose it - I am never forced to use it. 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.
Don't let proposal R1N 3038-AC61 become an expensive lesson in unintended consequences ....
Thank you.
Scott Greer
