Comment Text:
i0-001
COMMENT
CL-07450
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pierre Joubert < [email protected]>
Sunday, March 14, 2010 8:52 AM
secretary
[email protected]
Regulation of Retail Forex
Ref: RIN 3038-AC61.
Is there not enough joblessness out there? Why would you as governing
body directly change ruling that would ruin a lot of opportunities for
so many people hoping to make a change in their career direction and
thus leaving a job opportunity open for someone els? The downsizing
of leverage would cause prospects to need ten times the capital
presently needed to make a decent start in Forex, thus discouraging
many more. It is hard enough to get successful as it is! And don't
even think of getting all moral about the loss of funds by these
people, because you firstly have to close down Vegas before even
contemplating any so called "protection" measures on the present Forex
system. NO, leave Forex alone as it is. Yes, maybe keep rediculous
leverage of 200:1 or even 400:1 at bay, but 100:1 has been working
perfectly for everyone. It is a standard accepted world wide and
shrinking it to 10:1 would make the term leverage obsolete, since it
would leave no real room for the concept of leverage to be utilized!
To the public that don't know any better, this might even reek of
minipulation by some big shot company? You sure you're still a free
standing governing body or are you owned? Snugly tucked into
somebody's deep pocket? This surely looks like a direct ploy to
squash out the medium to small investor of Forex?
This is just a loose thought lying around in town.
No, this change this time would not be in the best interest of the
general puplic!
Trader
