How to spoil a party in a few easy lessons!

everything that doesn't belong elsewhere cometh here

Moderator: moderators

User avatar
Patch
rank: 500+ posts
rank: 500+ posts
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:13 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Virginia
Real name: Jeff
Gender: Male
Contact:

Postby Patch » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:46 am

retireme

Every time the government gets a little bigger, our freedoms and liberties are diminish. I had dinner with a dear friend this evening and I learned that he is upside down on his home to the tune of over $100,000. The men responsible for this are in the US Congress and Senate, THEY SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR LIFE. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd lead the Senate blocking reforms President Bush wanted for Fanny and Freddie, to put them under the same over site of other financial institutions. No they said, they were sound and no regulations were needed. Driving home Friday evening, I heard president B H Obama saying the American people want their (TARP) money back from the banks. Funny thing, the government required and threatened the banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to people who could not afford them in the first place. Then the housing bust. I read recently the government is once again telling them to give mortgages to people who can't afford them!!! This was after bankers were called to the a meeting at white house a short time ago to be lectured to by bho!!! Now these b******* in the government blame W Bush and the Banks!!! and deny their felony involvement. Sickening despicable liars.

Patch
Mad as Hell
In VA

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... wanted=all

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
ENOUGH being a Yalie for me Back to the Sea. "What i can lose, i can win" "YES YOU CAN" - dragon33 -"Pick one method and one pair and stick with them until you master it. "The choice is yours - success or failure." TRO

Please add www.kreslik.com to your ad blocker white list.
Thank you for your support.

User avatar
leonyde
rank: <50 posts
rank: <50 posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:11 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Here
Gender: None specified

Re: How to spoil a party in a few easy lessons!

Postby leonyde » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:48 am

PTG wrote:
leonyde wrote:
retireme wrote:Please read carefully!

http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/generalpre ... 72-10.html


Good news for European and Asian brokers :lol:


That remains to be seen. Not all of them accept US citizens as customers..

I have no clear insight into the politics of all this, however this might be an attempt by relevant exchanges to force people into using futures and thereby using the services of the exchanges.

Mini futures on currency pairs are already there (CME I think), ain't that a coincidence. Volume is (still) low.

Something to ponder.. :roll:


Interesting... Not going so far, this gives a clear advantage to certain firms over others...

User avatar
retireme
rank: 50+ posts
rank: 50+ posts
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:12 am
Reputation: 0
Location: Perth
Real name: Nick Boland
Gender: Male
Contact:

Postby retireme » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:03 am

Fortunately, we are not affected by this type of thing in Australia... YET!

My broker is bound by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regulations and not the NFA.

[schild=11 fontcolor=000000 shadowcolor=C0C0C0 shieldshadow=1]Ripper![/schild]

User avatar
pablo101
rank: 500+ posts
rank: 500+ posts
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:10 pm
Reputation: 0
Real name: Pete
Gender: None specified

Postby pablo101 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:42 am

It wouldn't surprise me if they try to implement forex retail traders as pattern day traders such as stocks where you have a minimum of 25K :shock:
What line? The line that tells you which way you are trading! - MO

User avatar
RicG
rank: 150+ posts
rank: 150+ posts
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:44 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male

Re: How to spoil a party in a few easy lessons!

Postby RicG » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:28 pm

Quite honesty, I don't know if the CFTC is attempting to push traders to the futures markets or not by trying to change the leverage on forex. However, if traders don't take massive action soon, the retail trader might not be able to make a living trading forex or futures or stocks or anything for that matter.

Yes - Mini futures on the major currency pairs are available here at the present time. I trade the Euro-mini in addition to the ES-mini.

However, there are lawmakers here in the U.S. that want to enact a Financial Transaction Tax on all trading instruments that would shut down the futures and forex markets, and massively cut the volume in the stock markets. The .25% tax is based on the total value of the gross transaction which means the tax on trading 1 ES-mini contract at the current price would be about $285 roundtrip. Pure lunacy! You would have to make over 5 and a half points per trade, just to pay the tax!

I urge any U.S. trader, who hasn't already done so, to call or write their Congressmen/women and sign the two petitions at the links below:

http://www.rallycongress.com/greentrade ... ction-tax/

http://www.rallycongress.com/greentrade ... ndustries/

Your help would be appreciated - your livelihood is at stake.

Regards,
Ric

PTG wrote:
leonyde wrote:
retireme wrote:Please read carefully!

http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/generalpre ... 72-10.html


Good news for European and Asian brokers :lol:


That remains to be seen. Not all of them accept US citizens as customers..

I have no clear insight into the politics of all this, however this might be an attempt by relevant exchanges to force people into using futures and thereby using the services of the exchanges.

Mini futures on currency pairs are already there (CME I think), ain't that a coincidence. Volume is (still) low.

Something to ponder.. :roll:
Last edited by RicG on Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Please add www.kreslik.com to your ad blocker white list.
Thank you for your support.

User avatar
PTG
rank: 500+ posts
rank: 500+ posts
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:24 pm
Reputation: 2
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: How to spoil a party in a few easy lessons!

Postby PTG » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:31 pm

RicG wrote:Quite honesty, I don't know if the CFTC is attempting to push traders to the futures markets or not by trying to change the leverage on forex. However, if traders don't take massive action soon, the retail trader might not be able to make a living trading forex or futures or stocks or anything for that matter.

Yes - Mini futures on the major currency pairs are available here at the present time. I trade the Euro-mini in addition to the ES-mini.

However, there are lawmakers here in the U.S. that are want to enact a Financial Transaction Tax on all trading instruments that would shut down the futures and forex markets, and massively cut the volume in the stock markets. The .25% tax is based on the total value of the gross transaction which means the tax on trading 1 ES-mini contract at the current price would be about $285 roundtrip. Pure lunacy! You would have to make over 5 and a half points per trade, just to pay the tax!

I urge any U.S. trader, who hasn't already done so, to call or write their Congressmen/women and sign the two petitions at the links below:

http://www.rallycongress.com/greentrade ... ction-tax/

http://www.rallycongress.com/greentrade ... ndustries/

Your help would be appreciated - your livelihood is at stake.

Regards,
Ric

PTG wrote:
leonyde wrote:
retireme wrote:Please read carefully!

http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/generalpre ... 72-10.html


Good news for European and Asian brokers :lol:


That remains to be seen. Not all of them accept US citizens as customers..

I have no clear insight into the politics of all this, however this might be an attempt by relevant exchanges to force people into using futures and thereby using the services of the exchanges.

Mini futures on currency pairs are already there (CME I think), ain't that a coincidence. Volume is (still) low.

Something to ponder.. :roll:


Very valid points you've got there, Ric.

The loonatics are clearly running the asylum.
This is my new signature: "new signature".

User avatar
noushina
rank: 50+ posts
rank: 50+ posts
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:50 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Fukushima Japan
Gender: None specified

Re: How to spoil a party in a few easy lessons!

Postby noushina » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:44 pm

EDIT: I only scanned ricG's comments and didn't realize he was talking about something totally different and absolutely devastating -- a proposed tax that would effectively impose a 25 pip tax on every trade.

But in re the the CFTC's proposed regulation to protect US forex traders from themselves by restricting leverage to 10:1 --


Here is a message I got from GFT with info on where to send your letters or emails.
GFT forex wrote:Should you feel strongly about the proposal, there is still time for you to help determine the outcome of these proposed regulations. You can make an impact by sending comments directly to the CFTC at: secretary@cftc.gov.

Please include 'Regulation of Retail Forex' in the subject line of your message and the identification number
RIN 3038-AC61 in the body of the message.

You can also submit your comments by any of the following methods (include above ID number):

Fax: (202) 418-5521
Mail: David Stawick, Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20581


Here is a copy of my letter. Please don't just copy it, as many identical letters are probably not as useful as individualized ones.

Noushina wrote:Dear CFTC

While I am happy that CFTC is trying to protect the forex community with most of this proposed regulation, I am troubled by the proposed leverage reduction.

I feel that this attempt to reduce leverage to 10 to 1 is not actually intended to protect the trader. I believe in fact it is a political move on the part of certain very wealthy institutions to remove small traders from the competition.

The proposed leverage reduction of RIN 3038-AC61 attempts to give the appearance of being a "Big Brother" type of action intended to protect the user from himself. But if that is REALLY the goal, then it will fail. In reality the proposed leverage reduction of RIN 3038-AC61 will force the small forex trader to open an unsafe oversees account. So the regulation if truly intend to serve the retail forex trader will fail.

But if the purpose of the leverage reduction is to eliminate forex retail traders from the US market then it will succeed marvelously.

A leverage of 10 to one makes it almost impossible to trade more than one pair at a time, or to enter into several long term trades.

Also some pairs such as the EUR/CHF move very little and so one needs to use a larger leverage. For example I tend to trade the EUR/USD with a leverage of about 30 to 1, whereas when I trade the EUR/CHF I trade it at about 3 times larger -- 90 to 1.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the aspect of RIN 3038-AC61 that reduces leverage to 10 to 1. The reduction last year from 400: 1 to 100: 1 was fine. We didn't need 400:1. 100: 1 is reasonable since it allows one to trade multiple pairs and also trade larger amounts on small movers such as EUR/CHF.


Thank you for your consideration.

{my name}
Last edited by noushina on Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
RicG
rank: 150+ posts
rank: 150+ posts
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:44 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male

Postby RicG » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:04 pm

noushina wrote:If you guys think that "signing" the above petition means something, think again. If such a petition list even goes anywhere it will soon be discarded. The signatures are not verifiable.

YOU MUST respond to the CFTC:

Here is a message I got from GFT with info on where to send your letters or emails.
GFT forex wrote:Should you feel strongly about the proposal, there is still time for you to help determine the outcome of these proposed regulations. You can make an impact by sending comments directly to the CFTC at: secretary@cftc.gov.

Please include 'Regulation of Retail Forex' in the subject line of your message and the identification number
RIN 3038-AC61 in the body of the message.

You can also submit your comments by any of the following methods (include above ID number):

Fax: (202) 418-5521
Mail: David Stawick, Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20581


Here is a copy of my letter. Please don't just copy it, as many identical letters are probably not as useful as individualized ones.

Noushina wrote:Dear CFTC

While I am happy that CFTC is trying to protect the forex community with most of this proposed regulation, I am troubled by the proposed leverage reduction.

I feel that this attempt to reduce leverage to 10 to 1 is not actually intended to protect the trader. I believe in fact it is a political move on the part of certain very wealthy institutions to remove small traders from the competition.

The proposed leverage reduction of RIN 3038-AC61 attempts to give the appearance of being a "Big Brother" type of action intended to protect the user from himself. But if that is REALLY the goal, then it will fail. In reality the proposed leverage reduction of RIN 3038-AC61 will force the small forex trader to open an unsafe oversees account. So the regulation if truly intend to serve the retail forex trader will fail.

But if the purpose of the leverage reduction is to eliminate forex retail traders from the US market then it will succeed marvelously.

A leverage of 10 to one makes it almost impossible to trade more than one pair at a time, or to enter into several long term trades.

Also some pairs such as the EUR/CHF move very little and so one needs to use a larger leverage. For example I tend to trade the EUR/USD with a leverage of about 30 to 1, whereas when I trade the EUR/CHF I trade it at about 3 times larger -- 90 to 1.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the aspect of RIN 3038-AC61 that reduces leverage to 10 to 1. The reduction last year from 400: 1 to 100: 1 was fine. We didn't need 400:1. 100: 1 is reasonable since it allows one to trade multiple pairs and also trade larger amounts on small movers such as EUR/CHF.


Thank you for your consideration.

{my name}
noushina,

The above petition absolutely means something and is, in fact, sent to lawmakers. When one signs the petition an e-mail is automatically sent to the individuals specific Senators and Representatives. I've already received replies from my lawmakers after having signed the petition so I know that they do get the message. Additionally, it is verifiable, as you must give a complete name and physical address in order to sign the petitions.

Also please understand, we are talking about two different problems that traders face. You are talking about the CFTC leverage reduction proposal, which I am also against. But that proposal wouldn't completely lock out all retail traders. The proposed Financial Transaction Tax (which is what the petitions are fighting), however, would basically keep all retail traders from "day-trading" forex, futures, stocks, options, etc. simply because the tax is based on the total retail value of the instrument traded. That means that when you purchase $100,000 of currency (a normal size for a small retail trader) you automatically would owe the U.S. government $250, whether or not you make a profit. The proposed tax would not be on the margin amount a trader put up, say $1000 on 100 to 1 margin, it would be on the entire $100,000.

I urge all traders on this board to sign the petitions against the proposed Financial Transaction Tax AND also write a letter to the CFTC as noushina has suggested.

We all have to stand together to fight these ridiculous governmental ideas or we won't be able to trade for a living.

Regards,
Ric

User avatar
bredin
rank: 1000+ posts
rank: 1000+ posts
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:41 pm
Reputation: 0
Gender: None specified
Contact:

Postby bredin » Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:59 pm

Wow, a government imposed additional 25 pip spread, that make sense...
Welcome to the era of "Guns and Maskies" Trading!
The previous message contains discretion. Viewer nudity is advised.
Insanity Industries Indicators Here
Insanity Industries on YouTube!

User avatar
noushina
rank: 50+ posts
rank: 50+ posts
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:50 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Fukushima Japan
Gender: None specified

Postby noushina » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:11 am

Sorry ricG. I failed to read your post and assumed it was a survey purtaining to the proposed 10:1 leverage limit -- instead it is about a proposed tax. A tax that would make US forex trading impossible. I edited my post.

Note however that approval of the leverage limitation is immanent, whereas it looks like that idiot's tax bill has not even gone to committee yet. It would need to go to committtee, pass both houses and be signed by the president.

If that idiot US tax bill did pass, then the consequences would obviously be far worse than the leverage restriction.

So we need to respond to both. Suggest personalized letters rather than form letters, however.
Last edited by noushina on Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Please add www.kreslik.com to your ad blocker white list.
Thank you for your support.


Return to “general”