Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-00733
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mpj w6685 @hotmail. com
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:04 PM
secretary
Public Comment Form
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
([email protected]) on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 17:04:09
commenter_subject: Energy Act of 2008
commenter_comments: Dear Sirs/Madams/CFTC agency professionals,
I'm writing to disagree with the provision of the
Energy Act regarding the lowering of the current
leverage of 100:1 in OTC forex transactions.
The proposed 10:1 leverage while on the outset
appears protective to the consumer it
disenfranchises us traders who responsibly use
leverage along with solid trade plans which include
good risk models. Consumers who jump in' the
trading game without getting educated get punished
when this fast moving market moves against them:
why should i be punished with a lower leverage
limit because the individual before & after me
didn't put the time/homework in to be successful?
Caveat emptor applies here more than ever: if a
newbie trader/consumer loses it's their fault for
dozens of reasons and your agency knows this.
Should a cardiac-thoraic surgeon be punished
because the operator before & after them are less
talented? Well, they are. The rest of the current
healthcare mess your all aware of.
The trickle down effect will go as follows:
London interbanks will surely take advantage of our
clearing houses by cranking up the admin fees. Not
to mention pricing adjustments upward.
Next our big 5 banks will clobber the FCM's with
pricing that would scare us all.
Next the FCM's will crush their private individual
retail forex traders as they attempt to salvage
what few 'whale' institutional clients they
maintain. The retail trader, if they have enoughi0-001
COMMENT
CL-00733
capital per a sound trade plan, will pay enormous
spreads & ridiculous swap fees. For the most part,
95% of private retail forex traders will be
marginalized to making nickels in lieu of dollars,
ie. out of business.
Next the trading community from the Chicago merch
pits to private retail traders will migrate to
London based shops, alot of which will be owned by
US based firms. All of that tax revenue going to a
foreign goverment? The Harvard zero-sum total math
losses are far too extensive to get into for this
response.
Next more legislation to prohibit Americans from
trading with an overseas desk? When does it end? Or
is this current proposal the beginning of the end
for retail traders?
Everything i'm mentioning you already know. So the
bigger question should be who benefits & why.
Is your charter to regulate the dealing desks/money
handlers or parental leverage & risk guidance for
retail traders? I speak for all retail traders: I
surely don't need your agency to protect me from
myself.
Please respectfully remove this proposal as the
only beneficiaries are major sized intsitutions.
Respectfully & Sincerely,
Michael Wachter
commenter name: Michael Wachter
commenter withhold address on: ON
commenter addressl: 106 Mullen Drive
commenter_city: Sicklerville
commenter state: NJ
commenter zip: 08081
commenter~ohone: 609.505.3685i0-001
COMMENT
CL-00733
