Here is the actual NFA proposal to raise capital requirements. 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.
On October 22, 2008, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved increases to NFA's capital requirements for Forex Dealer Members (FDMs). As stated in a July 23, 2008 Notice to Members, the minimum requirement will be $10 million as of October 31, 2008, $15 million as of January 17, 2009, and $20 million as of May 16, 2009.
The deadline to meet the new capital requirement is this Friday. The most up to date CFTC net capital statement shows the following firms with capital below the $10,000,000 requirement.
If you have an account with any of these firms contact them immediately to ensure that they will be able to comply with the new capital requirement this week. Some such as MG Financial and Hotspot have larger parent companies. But most do not. In this day and age safety of funds should be every trader’s top priority. Make sure your funds are safe.
Forexshcolar, thanks for keeping us forex traders up-to-date on the latest NFA capital requirements. It's good to know who will meet the requirements and who will not.
Last year forex dealer SNC Investments sold off its forex business because they were unable to meet the NFA’s $5 million capital requirement. But it appears that they stayed in business as a Futures Commission Merchant and Money Manager. They are in business no more. Let’s roll the tape from the NFA complaint…
On October 29, 2008, the CFTC contacted NFA. The CFTC advised NFA that it had received a telephone call from attorney David Serepca of San Carlos California, who said that he represented an individual by the name of Chris Lee. Serepca told the CFTC that, in April 2008, Chris Lee had written a check for $500,000 to SNC Asset Management and Kenneth Lee for the purpose of investing in a fund which would trade forex. Serepca said that he and his client had met with Kenneth Lee on October 29, 2008 and were told by Kenneth Lee that Peter Son (SNC CEO) had disappeared, and that customer money was missing.
Gotta love these CEO’s who just cut and run the moment everything goes pear shaped. I can picture Peter Son now, dressed up in drag like Jefferson Davis trying to escape the Union Army after the surrender of the Confederacy. Another forex fugitive gallops off in the dead of night…
Quote:
On October 29, 2008, another principal of SNC, Young Choi – who worked at SNC’s main office in New York City – advised NFA that SNC was out of business and wished to withdraw its NFA membership. In addition, NFA became aware of a newspaper article that appeared in The Korea Daily on October 29, 2008, which reported that SNC – a Korean investment firm located in California – was “closing its operations due to the global financial meltdown” and that “the partners of the firm have no power to revive the business.” The article also stated that the firm had been managing over $70 million and that “it appears many Korean investors may lose their investments in the firm.” The article reported that the main office of SNC had been closed since October 28 and that employees had been notified to no longer come to work. In addition the article reported that the “president of the firm, Peter Son, has not been reachable by many investors and that his cell phone has been off.”
Well if you mismanaged $70 million you’d probably turn your cell phone off too. Better yet you’d probably have hurled it into the East River on your way to Macy’s to get fitted for that wig and frock…
Quote:
Based on the telephone call from SNC’s Young Choi advising NFA that SNC was out of business, as well as the information received attorney David Serepca, and which appeared in the Korea Daily newspaper article, on October 30, 2008, NFA auditors went to SNC’s main office at 40 Wall Street in New York City to inquire about Peter Son and his whereabouts and to determine if customer funds were missing. However, when NFA auditors arrived at SNC’s main office they found that it was closed and its doors locked. The auditors left a note on the door requesting that a representative of SNC contact NFA.
Left a note on the door? Oh brother talk about closing the barn door after the horses have bolted… What could the note have possibly said? “Uh, Hello? You think you could let us regulators know what happened to that $70 million you had under management? Hope to hear from you. Warmest Regards, NFA.”
Quote:
Subsequently, NFA’s auditors were contacted by Young Choi, who agreed to meet with NFA’s auditors at SNC’s main offices at 40 Wall Street. Thereafter, NFA’s auditors did meet with Young Choi, who again indicated that SNC was out of business and that he had terminated the lease for SNC’s main office effective October 31, 2008. Young Choi also told NFA’s auditors that he first became aware of SNC Asset a few weeks ago, that he was unaware that it was involved in forex trading, and that it was this understanding that SNC Asset only invested in real estate. Young Choi further indicated that he did not know Peter Son’s whereabouts.
There is always someone that gets left holding the bag in a stick-up. And Young Choi appears to be said bagman. Left behind to clean up Peter Son’s mess poor Young Choi must be ruing the day he ever joined SNC Investments.
The implosion of SNC is yet another lesson in the perils of sending money to poorly capitalized firms. There is no way of telling how many small firms are tottering on the brink of financial ruin in the wake of the global credit crisis that has wiped out billions of dollars in wealth. As always, conduct your due diligence and beware poorly capitalized firms like the late SNC Investments.
With so many forex broker crooks, it scares me to try to open an account somewhere. The last time I opened an account was a few years ago with Refco. And we all know what happened with them. The illegal things the big bosses there were doing caused the firm to go bankrupt, and us traders that had accounts with them were wiped out.
I plan to once more open a live account next month, I just don't know where. As you can tell, I'm a little gun-shy after the Refco debacle. However, I guess I got to trust somebody with my account, if I want to trade in the forex market.
After years of fraud and malfeasance perpetrated by Bernie Madoff style Swiss forex brokers the retail forex business in Switzerland is on the verge of going legit as all Swiss brokers must either get a banking license or close up shop. However, these changes are still months away and thus many Swiss forex brokers continue to operate without a license.
But the good news is that the legit brokers are making themselves known. MIG Investments has just issued a press release stating that they have formally submitted their banking license application to the SFBC. This is no small feat and MIG should be congratulated on taking this first step: http://www.migfx.ch/news/press-relea...ash=2baa9bee91
Other Swiss brokers are moving in the same direction as well. However, one broker may be hitting a road block; Crown Forex. A disturbing report over at Forex Peace Army indicates the broker appears to be having difficulties making good on customer withdrawal requests
Now it should be noted that Forex Peace Army isn’t exactly The London Times and thus this report comes with a pretty big grain of salt. Forex Factory has since dumped the thread into the recycling bin:
Crown Forex has been notified about this report and been given an opportunity to respond by Forex Factory and rest assured their response will be included on this thread once it is given. Also, Crown Forex has announced that they plan on having 15 million Francs on hand to meet the SFBC’s capital requirement according to this recent press release: http://blogs.fxstreet.com/francesc/2...share-capital/
But the numerous instances detailed in the Peace Army report about Crown Forex not making good on customer withdrawals is very troubling and something traders should be aware of.
Again, the Scholar’s advice is to wait until these brokers actually gets their banking license before opening an account with any broker based in Switzerland.
After years of fraud and malfeasance perpetrated by Bernie Madoff style Swiss forex brokers the retail forex business in Switzerland is on the verge of going legit as all Swiss brokers must either get a banking license or close up shop. However, these changes are still months away and thus many Swiss forex brokers continue to operate without a license.
Excellent, only the strongest and fittest will survive.
In other words only Legitimate forex brokers will survive & their business will increase many times.
__________________ http://www.Panamoney.net Registered managed forex company paying 30% - 60% per month since 1 year.
Re: Proposed NFA capital requirements
Hybrid Mode
