Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Proposed Rule 75 FR 3281

  • From: Jessica Cheung
    Organization(s):

    Comment No: 2167
    Date: 1/21/2010

    Comment Text:

    i0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-02167
    From:
    Sent:
    To:
    Subject:
    j [email protected]
    Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:40 PM
    secretary
    Regulation of Retail Forex I RIN 3038-AC61
    Mr. David Stawick, Secretary
    Commodity Futures Trading Commission
    1155 21st Street, N.W.,
    Washington, DC 20581
    Dear Mr. Stawick:
    My name isJessica Cheung and Iama retail forextrader. I have been trading forexfora little
    more than two years.
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the CFTC's proposed changes to further decrease
    leverage within the retailforex market to 10: 1. The recent regulations to decrease leverage to
    100:1 has already been poorly received by many retail traders and I for one would actually like to
    see 200:1 leverage to be reinstated.
    Iviewthis new proposal as even more disruptive and unnecessary. It would close off the forex
    market to many retail traders. Under the proposed changes, we would need to deposit $10,000
    USD just to trade one standard lot. This is far too extreme and in reality, this is even more risky
    for retail clientele. None of the retailforex brokerage firms offerFDIC insurance coverage. To lock
    up $10,000 with a forex broker seems very unreasonable and very risky for retail clients. We can
    now trade currency futures micro-lots offered by the CME Group for only a $5000 minimum
    account deposit with discount brokerages such as E'Trade. Why should the leverage in the spot
    retail market be treated differently and why should we have to deposite $10,000 to trade spot
    currencies with no FDIC coverage?
    Additionally, to be trading forex for over six months, a retail client would already be well aware of
    the risks associated with forextrading. The CFTC should in fact only implement leverage
    restrictions on clients during an introductory phase, such as the first three to six months an
    account is first opened rather than implement broad-based limitations on all clients. A broad-
    based leverage restriction would cause more damage to long term retail forex traders.
    I therefore request that the proposed 10:1 leverage amendment be withdrawn and that the 200:1
    leverage be reinstated.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jessica Cheung
    2336 West 13th Street
    Third Floor
    Brooklyn, NY 11223i0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-02167