Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-05453
Pagelof2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ford, Mildred Y.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:56 AM
Mason, Theresa
FW: RIN 3038-AC61 - Regulation of Retail Forex - Proposed Regulation 5.9
From:
Allan Lurry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:47 AM
To:
secretary
Subject:
RIN 3038-AC61 - Regulation of Retail Forex - Proposed Regulation 5.9
Mr. David Stawick
Secretary Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20581
RE: RIN 3038-AC61 - Regulation of Retail Forex - Proposed Regulation 5.9
Dear Mr. Stawick:
I reviewed the Federal Register, released January 20, 2010, to gain further insight of proposed
regulations that would impact individuals, like myself, trading with RFEDs and FCMs. I like the new
regulations that would require all involved in providing broker/dealer services to be registered. I also
like proposed sections that will provide customer protection from failing and unscrupulous firms. This
protection will boost confidence in the industry.
On the other hand, I have a serious concern regarding Proposed Regulation 5.9(a) - Security Deposits
for Retail Forex Transactions. As an individual, I invested in training classes to prepare myself for a part
time and possibly a full time career in trading the currency markets. The risk/reward scenario for every
trade is in constant play for me. As a trader, risk is constantly analyzed for all my trades. Having access
to a greater leverage makes my investment in training classes worth the time and effort. If the
security deposit requirement is increased, the time and thousands of dollars invested in those classes
will virtually be lost.
Last week, President Obama gave a speech introducing proposed bank regulations struck a nerve for
me. In paraphrasing, Obama said that banks were taking risks that eventually the American taxpayer
would have to cover. If the investment was good, banks profited big, with cheap money. If the
investment was bad, banks lost and tax payers would have to cover the losses. As an individual, I make
an investment and if it was good, I profited. If I make a bad investment, I lose. The difference between
myself and the banks is that I can't ask the Federal Government to cover my losses.
I am thankful for the intention to protect individual customers like myself, but please do not increase
the security deposit requirement as outlined in Proposed Regulation 5.9(a). As an individual trader, I
fully understand the risks that I am exposed to. As a trader, the risk is always analyzed. For Proposed
Regulation 5.9(b), may I suggest that it be written in such a way that "customers will not be held liable
file://E:~Law50\Cases~Retail FOREX Transactions\$EDD\$NativeFiles\00\01\48\47.ntv.htm 3/23/2010i0-001
COMMENT
CL-05453
Page2of2
for trades that were not closed out at a zero balance"? This will encourage each RFED and FCM to
incorporate procedures in their business process to ensure that losing positions are closed out to a
zero balance. Mostly importantly it will effectively root out unscrupulous firms that look to take
advantage of retail customers by not closing out losing positions.
Thanks for taking time to review my comments and suggestions regarding Proposed Regulation .5.9.
Sincerely,
Allan kurry
file://E:~Law50\Cases~Retail FOREX Transactions\$EDD\$NativeFiles\00\01\48\47.ntv.htm 3/23/2010
