Proposed NFA Capital Requirement
Bankrupt?
They are as good as bankrupt. Right now the customers can't even get their money out.
In all fairness, it's a proposal, so you can't designate firms that currently don't have $5,000,000 in the bank "Dead Firms Walking". Once the proposal has been adapted, firms will have time to meet the new requirements. Some will be able to, some will not. Also, whether a firm is sufficiently capitalized or not depends on the number of customers and trading volume.
The Refco example shows that non-Forex customers will get their money, but Forex customers will have problems in case of bankrupty. This does not change. The proposal seems noble, but does nothing structurally to improve the situation for the retail Forex trader. There is no segregated accounts requirement, as far as I know, or some other measure to make sure that a customers' funds simply can't be touched in case of a bankruptcy.
Although I'm all in favor of solvent Forex brokers, my impression is that the NFA doesn't like the Forex market, as it, other than with futures, does not directly profit from its transactions.
What about Northfinance? Do they have enough capital, where do I find the info... thx Max
should add refco to them too haha..... its been 3 years and i still ahvent seen signs of getting a penny back
I thought NFA stands for National Future Associations, what does forex have to do with futures...wasn't Forex Run by the IMF-International Monetary Funds or Foreign Exchange and SEC., I don't pay much attention to the exchanges. Maybe the Broker you mention is bettting against client and they loses, never know, I have seen refco and other broker did it and they were broke because they bet against client and they lost. You have to know that there are some very good big client trader such as Warrent Buffet if they bet against this kind of client they will lose big time...How can a huge broker like refco and Neimex go broke all they have to do is sit back and collect commission. The only way they go broke is trade bet against clients and they lose they can't fullfill it.
Forex Saviour - where did you get your figures for FXDD from ? They are not listed in the doc and I believe them to be a very stable company. A bit of scaremongering going on here I think ! 
After checking the NFA report, the best capitalized company who sopport MT4 platform is:
FOREX LIQUIDITY LLC $36,104,791 of capital at the day 04/30/2007
part two
Now, those are the facts. Let’s talk about what this means in the real world. Why do firms need a net capital in the first place? I find it disturbing the number of people that trade forex and don’t understand how it works. 99% of firms out there are deal desks, including several that are pretending not to be. It doesn’t have anything to do with the size of their spreads or their software. It means ONE thing. They make their income by trading against YOU. You buy, they sell to you. You sell, they buy from you. At the end of the day, it’s very simple. They make money when their customers collectively lose money. Now, stop and think about it for a second. You’re a firm. You have hundreds or even thousands of customers, and you have to provide them with a quote (which you have complete control to move around REGARDLESS of what the real banks are showing on the interbank system). What happens if all of your customers want to buy the EURUSD one day? You’re selling it to them.
Forex is a highly leveraged deal. What if the EURUSD keeps going up? The firm is short and selling more if the customers are buying. While obviously most deal desks make a ton of money, the RISK of being the platform is huge. If you get caught heavy in the wrong direction and the market goes hard against you, you can eat up everything that your firm is worth quickly. And, just so we are clear, if a firm has a $5,000,000 capitalization and then all of their customer money, if they lose $8,000,000 on an “event,” meaning a big loss against their customers, they have no capital, and the customer assets are seized next. That’s the same in any financial business, brokerages and banks included. Whatever capital is required, and then potentially some insurance level for the company or the customers, and then any event that creates a loss that exceeds that and the customer money is at risk. This isn’t just forex. There was a major national stock brokerage firm in the last couple of weeks that went from having millions and millions of dollars to negative $18 million or so due to a bad trade/investment in the bond market. Firm is gone, customers are scrambling. It can happen.
And of course, in reality, just because a firm/brokerage/bank has a huge net capital doesn’t mean that things are safer. They tend to take bigger risks with that money because they need a return on that money. They don’t just leave it sitting in cash. So a firm with a $50,000,000 net capital is probably showing a risk level that is more in line with having that sort of valuation, which means they can get hit just as hard and fast if they don’t know what they are doing as a smaller operation.
Now, what is the situation with us here at EFX? We are, as has been discussed forever on these boards, NOT a deal desk. At all. Remotely. I challenge anyone to suggest differently. We’ll get on a webinar and walk you through it. Your order sits on a server that no one sees and when that order becomes marketable, it hits a bank in the interbank system. We don’t take the other side of your trade. Ever. Therefore, we aren’t at the same level of risk that all of these deal desks are on a daily basis. We pass your order through and settle your exchange of currency at the end of the day between ourselves and the bank that took the trade at the price that your order executed against the bank. We charge you a fee for making that transaction possible. Obviously, it’s working. We have so many banks now in the system that our EURUSD quote spends much of the day under 1 pip. So does the GBPUSD. Ever heard the phrase “When banks compete, you win”? Maybe we should have had that motto first.
So where is our risk of having financial troubles? The biggest risk lies in overseeing our customer accounts. If someone has $1000 in their account and buys 5 GBPUSD and the GBPUSD goes down 180 pips, the account is down to $100. That’s where the customer is at risk, because a news spike could then drop it a quick 40 more pips, and now the customer account has gone negative. We wish that everyone traded with a stop in the system to prevent this situation from arising, but they don’t. So, we have extensive systems in place that includes human and computer monitoring to make sure that accounts that get near zero are watched appropriately. We don’t want to close out a position for a customer, but when people trade without stops and get themselves into that type of situation, of course we have to. We have to protect ourselves and all of our other customers. Beyond that, our risk is really just our operations, the cost of having a back office that does what we do. That is not significant compared to the risk that most deal desks have to show daily.
Now, here’s my opinion. What you are seeing is exactly what we have wanted to see from this industry. It is regulating itself better to protect the consumer (trader). Doing so requires raising the amount of money necessary to do business. This keeps the smaller, less-capitalized players out, which is good for the consumer. We believe that LOWER leverage levels are going to be mandated eventually. No one makes money trading at 400 to 1. They get crushed. 100 to 1 or 50 to 1 as a maximum would be sufficient. The professional traders who make money in this business don’t trade anywhere near that level anyway. The industry needs to enforce better “truth in advertising” laws, and we’re seeing that more and more. You can’t pretend that you aren’t a dealing desk just because people like to hear you say that, but then make your money in the spread. If you aren’t charging a fee for providing a customer with an execution, then by definition, you are a dealing desk. Period. I have no idea if the NFA is actually going to raise the net capital requirement, but we see all of this as a positive as we continue to develop and prepare to deploy Project Omega, and we look forward to further improvements in the industry that help protect the consumer. And of course, we will comply with the guidelines of a regulatory body, as we always have.
Hope this answers everyone’s questions. Maybe after the week of Fourth of July, we will do a special webinar event to talk openly and answer direct questions. I’ll try to set it up with one of our VPs. Trade well.
__________________
Justin LeBlang
EFX Group
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
The news about the NFA shaking up the forex industry by dramatically raising capital requirements has kicked off a lot of speculation. So I gathered everything I have learned about this new NFA proposal and am posting here for your review. As someone who has been burned by a bankrupted forex broker I can tell you it is not a pleasant feeling to watch your funds get sucked into some black hole. So my advice is to stay away from any firm that is not currently meeting the coming $5 million capital requirement. And if you already have money at such a firm, get it out, now. If you don't, you could end up like the poor souls at United Global Markets (UGMFX) who can't get their money out due to an NFA account freeze: UGM - United Global Markets GOING DOWN @ Forex Factory
Who has the Money & Who Doesn't
To find out how much money your broker has goto this link:
http://www.cftc.gov/files/tm/fcm/tmfcmdata0704.pdf
Healthy Forex Firms
FXLQ ($36,000,000)
Interbank ($7,000,000)
FXCM ($51,000,000)
GFT ($48,000,000)
Oanda ($44,000,000)
FX Solutions ($20,000,000)
Gain Capital ($20,000,000)
CMS ($10,000,000)
Dead Firms Walking
One World Capital ($1,105,000)
Velocity4X ($1,587,000)
Direct Forex LLC ($1,523,000)
FiniFX ($1,464,000)
Forex Club ($3,304,000)
GFS Futures & Forex ($3,074,000)
Nations Investments ($1,699,000)
Royal Forex Trading ($1,102,000)
SNC Investments ($1,565,000)
MB Futures ($3,080,000)
Money Garden ($3,399,844)
United Global Markets (Bankrupt)
Here is the actual NFA proposal to raise capital requirements (below that is the sad email from the CEO of UGMFX stating the firm is going under.) The CFTC is expected to sign off on it this summer. I'll comment further on the proposal in a future posting as it will actually require most firms to have upwards of $10 million in capital when you take into consideration such things as open customer positions and margin levels. In any case, this should be sober reading to anyone who is currently trading at one of the "Dead Firms Walking."
NFA Proposal
The proposals pertain to the minimum adjusted net capital requirement and the concentration charge and set certain requirements for FDMs' internal financial controls.
Minimum Adjusted Net Capital and Concentration Charges
In the past twenty years, there have been nine FCM insolvencies. Since 1990, there have been only two insolvencies by traditional FCMs trading on U.S. exchanges, and no funds in segregated customer accounts were lost in either of those two instances. This is from a population that averages around 250 (over the last 20 years). Even in the Refco matter, the FCM filed for bankruptcy not because customer funds were at risk but, rather, to facilitate the sale of its assets and the transfer of its accounts in connection with the parent company’s insolvency.
The FCM insolvency rate becomes more troubling when FDMs are added to the mix. Of the three bankruptcy or receivership proceedings for insolvency occurring in the last four years, two have involved FDMs (Refco was the third), and they are drawn from the smaller FDM population (averaging around 40). Specifically, in late 2003, an FDM misappropriated almost $2 million of customer funds, which depleted the amount of assets necessary to meet the amounts owed to customers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") is still working to try to get back some of the customers’ funds. More recently, NFA took a Member Responsibility Action ("MRA") against an FDM whose liabilities exceeded its assets by over $1 million. The CFTC also brought an emergency action in U.S. District Court, and the Court immediately appointed a receiver who was subsequently able to sell the FDM’s customer accounts. Due to this sale, it appears that the customers were made whole.
This discrepancy between FDMs and FCMs involved in on-exchange transactions is even greater when looking at the number of financial MRAs NFA has issued in the last ten years. During that period, NFA issued twelve MRAs to FCMs for failing to demonstrate compliance with NFA’s financial requirements. Three of these firms were traditional FCMs with an on-exchange business, one was a forex dealer registered as an FCM prior to the advent of the FDM category, and the remaining eight were FDMs.
NFA's concern that one day an FDM might be unable to meet its financial obligations to its customers has heightened as the amount of retail customer funds held by FDMs has increased to over $1 billion. The above described FDM insolvencies have done nothing to abate this concern, particularly with the most recent occurring just months after the $1 million capital requirement became effective. If the receiver had not sold the FDM's accounts, then twice within less than four years customers of FDMs would have lost funds due to an FCM insolvency. Additionally, since March, eight different FDMs have fallen under the early warning requirement of $1.5 million.
One of the reasons for the 2006 increase to the FDM capital requirements was that an FDM’s dealer activities create greater financial risks than the agency transactions involved in traditional exchange-traded futures and options. A second reason is that the need for adequate capital is particularly acute for FDMs since customers trading off-exchange forex have not received a priority under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of a firm’s insolvency. Both of these reasons still exist.
NFA is not alone in recognizing the increased financial risk of acting as a dealer. Congress recognized that acting as a dealer increases financial risk and requires substantially higher capital on the part of the dealer. Pursuant to Section 4c(d)(2)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") the grantor of a dealer option must maintain at all times a net worth of $5 million. The Commission has likewise recognized the increased financial risk resulting from being a dealer, imposing an adjusted net capital requirement of $2.5 million on leverage transaction merchants ("LTMs").[1]
When the Commission adopted the financial requirements for LTMs in 1984, it noted that the leverage market is "essentially a principals' market" and that the "purchaser of a leverage contract is solely dependent on the LTM for performance on the contract."[2] This is the exact same situation that customers are in when they purchase or sell currencies with an FDM. Further, as with an LTM, an FDM "takes the other side of every [contract] entered into by a [customer]" and the FDM "is the sole guarantor of performance on the [contract]." When trading with an FDM "there is no clearing organization to take the other side of every trade, no FCM guaranty of variation margin to the clearing organization and no clearing organization guaranty fund and assessment power."[3] Due to these factors, the financial requirements for FDMs, like LTMs, must be substantially higher than those for FCMs engaging in agency transactions.
As noted above, the Commission imposed the $2.5 million capital requirement for LTMs in 1984. Based upon the Consumer Price Index, $2.5 million in 1984 dollars would be worth approximately $5 million today. Accordingly, NFA is proposing to raise the minimum adjusted net capital for FDMs to $5 million. An increased capital requirement would result in an FDM having a larger buffer to meet its obligations to its customers. Additionally, an increase in capital requirements for FDMs would ensure that FDMs have a larger financial stake in their forex business.
Mr. Stephen Leahy
Chief Financial Officer
United Global Markets, LLC
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000Boston, MA 02116
Tel # (617) 357-5122sleahy@ugmfx.com
Dear Valued Client:
United Global Markets (UGMFX) has been notified that we are in violation of CFTC Regulation 1.17(a)(4) by our regulatory body, the National Futures Association. We have been notified that we fall below the minimum Adjusted Net Capital requirements of $1,000,000 and therefore may not allow clients to open new positions until we increase our own capital.
To be clear, United Global Markets has more than enough cash assets as compared to our liabilities to our clients. But we do not have $1,000,000 of our own liquid assets which is the NFA’s required minimum.
We are speaking to an institutional partner that has both more than the capital requirements AND shares our philosophy of treating clients fairly. However as with most large financial institutions, they have not been able to due their due diligence on United Global Markets in the short time period since the NFA’s proposed changes to Financial Requirements.
Therefore, in compliance with the NFA-issued notice of violation of CFTC Regulation 1-17(a)(4), our clients may only close open positions and not initiate new positions until further notice. Additionally we may not accept new client accounts or further funds from existing clients.
For those who wish to withdraw funds, please fax or e-mail a Withdrawal Request Form and we will process quickly.
http://www.ugmfx.com/downloads/Withdrawal_funds.pdf