Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Proposed Rule 75 FR 3281

  • From: Elikan F Mateluna
    Organization(s):
    Efexco CIA Ltda

    Comment No: 8922
    Date: 3/22/2010

    Comment Text:

    i0-001
    COMMENT
    CL-08922
    From:
    Sent:
    To:
    Subject:
    [email protected] on behalf of
    EFEXCO CIA. LTDA.
    Monday, March 22, 2010 11:15 PM
    secretary < secretary@ C FTC. g ov >
    Regulation of retail Forex RIN 3038-AC61
    In relation to this Regulation as a trader of the Forex Market, I must say that in my case for the type of long-term
    negotiations, I think that the implementation of this type of regulation for transactions I use to make is good,
    however I think that a strict provision of 10:1 leverage globally may be counterproductive, would be more
    appropriate to have a flexible regulation between 100:1 maximum to 10:1 at least subjected to the trader criteria,
    to allow support different operational strategies in a secure, productive and transparent way. I not expected to
    give my opinion on this matter, because I believe that this type of regulation does not affect me, however given
    the clumsiness applied to the FIFO rule, which harms greatly to all traders in all transactions in currencies based
    on the dollar, I would like that my voice would be considered at this time, and also I would like to request the
    revision of FIFO rule, because there is no compensation at all in the application in such cases, I would just like to
    note on a small example the big error made in the application of that rule on foreign exchange transactions
    based on the dollar.
    Contract long, bought at USD/JPY 123.00 and sold at USD/JPY 85.00, that implies a 3800 pips market
    movement, but at a pip value of approx. 1/0.85 at sell time, means a loss of 4470 pips at a unit value pip.
    Contract long, bought at USD/JPY at 85.00 and sold at USD/JPY 123.00, that implies also a 3800 pips
    market movement, but at a pip value of approx. 1/1.23 is only a gain of 3089 pips at a unit value pip, not
    enough to cover the loses of the forced operation of selling the "bad" contract first, and then buy a new one again
    at a "better price".
    There is a huge difference, ~,Where is the FIFO compensation?, ~, Was this rule imposed to make the traders
    lose more?, ~,Did you not realize this?. The FIFO standard is fair only in currencies that are not based on the
    dollar, at a constant pip value; the solution is not LIFO, the real solution is to let the traders decide which contract
    they want to sell first.
    The same case is with the leverage, let the traders decide the leverage in a range and make that all FDM must
    publish a clear note about the risks implied in such decision and also they must sell a proportionally small lot size
    for each level of leverage taken, in this way for example:
    For a 100:1 leverage, a lot size standard of 1:10, means that for a 10.000 account a 1.000 lot size; and for a
    10:1 leverage a 100 lot size, this would be fine for both, traders and FDMs; evidently a lower leveraged account is
    better and safer for the traders in margin call cases, but with a proper lot size it would be also a good business
    for the FDMs.
    Thank you for letting express my opinion at this time.
    ELIKAN FRIEDMAN MATELUNA
    EFEXCO CIA. LTDA.
    Av. Amazonas N21-147 y Roca Off. 1017
    Telf. 593-2-2909069 ! 593-2-2906098
    Quito - Ecuador
    www. efexco, co m
    Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!