Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Proposed Rule 75 FR 3281

  • From: James DeSalle
    Organization(s):

    Comment No: 5963
    Date: 3/4/2010

    Comment Text:

    i0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-05963
    From:
    Sent:
    To:
    Subject:
    James DeSalle
    Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:46 AM
    secretary
    Regulation of Retail Forex
    Dear Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
    This letter is in regards to your upcoming decision on whether to restrict leverage to 10:1 on retail
    foreign exchange trading. I am completely opposed to such a decision. The reason that high leverage
    levels are needed in foreign exchange trading is because of the relatively small price movements that
    occur in this market. This is different than in other markets, such as the stock market, which experience
    much larger price movements per equivalent time periods.
    If the 10:1 leverage level is adopted, it will essentially kill the retail forex market since retail investors
    such as me do not have millions of dollars to trade, and thus the substantially smaller profits that we
    would reap using 10:1 leverage would be too small to justify our participation in the retail forex market.
    In the past, you implemented other regulations that, in my opinion, were unneeded. The first was to ban
    opposing orders. The second was requiring first-in-first-out order execution. These regulations were
    onerous and bothersome, although relatively harmless compared to the leverage restriction regulation in
    this discussion.
    More importantly, you have not proposed passing clearly needed regulation, such as requiring forex
    brokers to maintain customer funds in segregated accounts. This is what is currently required of brokers
    in the United Kingdom, for example. Currently in the United Stated, if a broker were to file for
    bankruptcy, their customers would stand to lose funds, since that money is currently comingled with the
    brokerage company's capital assets.
    Frankly, I am astounded that, on the one hand, you have not passed clearly needed regulation such as
    requiring segregated accounts, but have instead passed onerous, ill-thought, and counterproductive
    regulation such as the examples I have given.
    To say the least, I am disappointed. This commission's reputation is changing from that of a respected
    regulator to being a nuisance. The decision as to how much leverage to use must remain a personal
    choice.
    Sincerely yours,
    James DeSalle
    Los Angeles, CA