Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why oh why did we have to have this extra margin? why not just have guaranteed stops (which we pay a little bit more for) and these limits cannot exceed how much money is available in the spread betting a/c. No leverage allowed (funding of account via credit card has never been allowed, has it?) and no financial risk greater than the funds available to bet with. Seriously though. I would appreciate comments from experienced people as to why this was not an option.

Link to post
  • 4 weeks later...

Just to play '****'s advocate' for a moment, what say ESMA are looking forward to the failure of their new regulations in order to use it as an excuse to ban CFD's/SB's outright such as is the case in the USA and Hong Kong. Wouldn't put it passed them.  

 

 

Link to post

@TrendFollower,  the US regulators used exactly the same arguments currently being used by ESMA, that too many retail clients lose too much money ergo they can't know what they are doing and so must be protected for there own good.

The resultant move by US retail clients after the cfd ban into futures and options with much lower available leverage resulted, as expected, in stripping out all the small and many of the medium sized account holders by having a much higher threshold for account size.

The way the EU likes to constantly push new regulations and considering the info in the article in the first post in this thread and remembering esma's complete disregard for the views of retail clients the long term future of cfd's and sb's would seem far from certain. 

 

 

Link to post

@TrendFollower,

Doubt if many would agree with the need for more regulation as you suggest, that would be going down the esma pathway. No one starting up is not aware of the risk to their capital and most are aware that most new traders will blow one or two accounts on the way to profitability (the cost of learning). 

According to IG they only make on the spread and don't make like a bookmaker, taking the other side of the trade and hoping the punter will be the loser, so it's in their best interest that clients stay afloat and keep trading.

Something like 70% of new business startups fail, banks don't demand proof of success and experience before lending for a startup, if they did there wouldn't be any new business startups.

Available leverage has already come down substantially and this is the problem sighted in the article above. You can no longer start trading with an account of just a couple of hundred quid, you now need a couple of thousand but the new business startup failure rate remains the same at 70 - 80%, so in affect new traders are losing more money due to the regulations implemented in the name of client protection. 

 

Link to post

@TrendFollower,

Actually many businesses start up with nothing more than a business plan and a bank loan, experience is not an excluding factor but I see you have lost interest in esma which is the topic of this thread. If you wish to solely discuss business startups why not start a new thread on that subject.

Link to post

@Kodiak, interesting article on hedging and interesting points in that article concerning tax implications. Eg not selling as shares pullback so don't pay capital gains/stamp tax but hedging with a cfd instead and if the cfd backfired can offset loss on any other gains.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • General Statistics

    • Total Topics
      15,433
    • Total Posts
      73,993
    • Total Members
      62,366
    • Most Online
      7,522
      10/06/21 10:53

    Newest Member
    Macka
    Joined 18/06/21 22:04
  • Posts

    • This weekend don't forget the rules to SAVE LIVES!!!!!   ... unless of course you happen to be going to Ascot 👍
    • Looks like it's a flat squib affair for the SP500 - I'm away early next week, but I'd give this until Tuesday (max 3 weeks after the physical date) to do something otherwise I'm marking it down as a failure Which is not bad, out of all the TC's this one is the one to be most concerned won't work, especially during an UP Bullish major cycle, which is what we are in, but the expectation was for the market to react as per May 2012 as shown on the Internal cycle harmonic chart in the post directly above So unless we get a 7%+ correction from the highs next week - I'll simply log this as failed - remember we trade the market NOT the Time Cycle  The small correction into the actual date is NOT good enough to say that was it! - We should be able to see these corrections/upswings clearly on a monthly chart, which means they should be of significance I'll hold off publishing the next Time Cycle just in case something happens next week SP500 Index Daily Chart: data to Thursday 17th June 2021
    • and Gold Puked at 10 year resistance line  
×
×
  • Create New...