Edit Your Comment
ESMA and its implication
Jul 23, 2018 부터 멤버
게시물102
Oct 21, 2018 at 06:24
Feb 22, 2011 부터 멤버
게시물4573
s1m3nk0n posted:
The biggest implication is that traders are flowing out of EU-based brokerages into the brokerages that still offer 1:100-500 leverages. Not much will change besides that.
Well US traders are already forced to follow stupid US rules over the globe
EU will maybe force the same.
Oct 26, 2018 부터 멤버
게시물10
Nov 02, 2018 부터 멤버
게시물10
Nov 16, 2018 at 14:19
Feb 22, 2011 부터 멤버
게시물4573
BTW ESMA should be over
Contracts for Differences (from 1 August 2018) - a restriction on the marketing, distribution or sale of CFDs to retail investors. This restriction consists of: leverage limits on opening positions; a margin close out rule on a per account basis; a negative balance protection on a per account basis; preventing the use of incentives by a CFD provider; and a firm specific risk warning delivered in a standardised way
Next steps
MiFIR gives ESMA the power to introduce temporary intervention measures on a three monthly basis. Before the end of the three months, ESMA will review the product intervention measures and consider the need to extend them for a further three months.
At least I have not seen any decision to prolong it
Contracts for Differences (from 1 August 2018) - a restriction on the marketing, distribution or sale of CFDs to retail investors. This restriction consists of: leverage limits on opening positions; a margin close out rule on a per account basis; a negative balance protection on a per account basis; preventing the use of incentives by a CFD provider; and a firm specific risk warning delivered in a standardised way
Next steps
MiFIR gives ESMA the power to introduce temporary intervention measures on a three monthly basis. Before the end of the three months, ESMA will review the product intervention measures and consider the need to extend them for a further three months.
At least I have not seen any decision to prolong it
Nov 27, 2018 at 10:57
Apr 18, 2017 부터 멤버
게시물659
togr posted:
BTW ESMA should be over
Contracts for Differences (from 1 August 2018) - a restriction on the marketing, distribution or sale of CFDs to retail investors. This restriction consists of: leverage limits on opening positions; a margin close out rule on a per account basis; a negative balance protection on a per account basis; preventing the use of incentives by a CFD provider; and a firm specific risk warning delivered in a standardised way
Next steps
MiFIR gives ESMA the power to introduce temporary intervention measures on a three monthly basis. Before the end of the three months, ESMA will review the product intervention measures and consider the need to extend them for a further three months.
At least I have not seen any decision to prolong it
Thank you very much mate for your info. I really appreciate your effort! Have a good day, keep sharing your knowledge.
Jan 25, 2010 부터 멤버
게시물1288
Dec 16, 2018 at 10:00
Jan 25, 2010 부터 멤버
게시물1288
Greenwood posted:
I think 1:50 is enough leverage for most people. If you are good then you can still make money. If you then this will help you minimise losses
"Of course, the authorities believe that these regulations serve to limit the losses of bad traders (which they do, to an extent), but it is not the availability of leverage that wipes traders out – it’s the lack of education and discipline on the trader’s part.
In my view, the only real difference such regulations make is that instead of taking 3 months to wipe out a bad trader’s capital, it may now take 9 months. But the end result is still the same. Bad traders will keep losing until they improve. The availability of leverage has little to do with their losses.
Similar to the effect of diversification, reduced leverage protects losing traders while punishing the winning ones."
- Christopher Lee, The Retail Forex Manifesto
https://www.pipmavens.com/i/principlefive/
Aug 27, 2017 부터 멤버
게시물875
Dec 19, 2018 at 11:20
Feb 22, 2011 부터 멤버
게시물4573
I was always postulating the fact low leverage makes you lose money.
Nowadays got this confirmed. From whom? From ESMA itself:)
https://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/esma-admits-more-retail-cfd-traders-lost-money-after-leverage-cap/
Nowadays got this confirmed. From whom? From ESMA itself:)
https://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/esma-admits-more-retail-cfd-traders-lost-money-after-leverage-cap/
Dec 24, 2018 at 07:34
Apr 18, 2017 부터 멤버
게시물659
togr posted:
I was always postulating the fact low leverage makes you lose money.
Nowadays got this confirmed. From whom? From ESMA itself:)
https://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/esma-admits-more-retail-cfd-traders-lost-money-after-leverage-cap/
Interesting; let me check the link 1st! I’ll share my feedback very soon to you! Thanks mate.
May 30, 2019 at 14:31
Dec 05, 2014 부터 멤버
게시물3
Hallo :-)
Somebody told me that ESMA are planing to force non-european brokers like the Australian brokers to the same conditions as the brokers in EU under ESMA for citizins of the EU.
Do anybody know anything about this or if its true or not at all?
Cause if can find anything about it on the web or on ESMAs homepage.
Somebody told me that ESMA are planing to force non-european brokers like the Australian brokers to the same conditions as the brokers in EU under ESMA for citizins of the EU.
Do anybody know anything about this or if its true or not at all?
Cause if can find anything about it on the web or on ESMAs homepage.
Aug 29, 2018 부터 멤버
게시물10
Aug 27, 2017 부터 멤버
게시물875
Jul 30, 2019 at 09:41
Jul 23, 2019 부터 멤버
게시물11
togr posted:
I was always postulating the fact low leverage makes you lose money.
Nowadays got this confirmed. From whom? From ESMA itself:)
https://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/esma-admits-more-retail-cfd-traders-lost-money-after-leverage-cap/
It is nuts that the EU just ignore the data that they do not like. So this proves that lower leverage is a bad idea and what to the EU do, they just carry on regardless.
Jul 30, 2019 at 12:40
Apr 18, 2017 부터 멤버
게시물700
Aqissiaq posted:togr posted:
I was always postulating the fact low leverage makes you lose money.
Nowadays got this confirmed. From whom? From ESMA itself:)
https://www.leaprate.com/forex/regulations/esma-admits-more-retail-cfd-traders-lost-money-after-leverage-cap/
It is nuts that the EU just ignore the data that they do not like. So this proves that lower leverage is a bad idea and what to the EU do, they just carry on regardless.
Even; 1:30 is really too small! I think; retail traders need 1:100 trading leverage for trading!

*상업적 사용 및 스팸은 허용되지 않으며 계정이 해지될 수 있습니다.
팁: 이미지/유튜브 URL을 게시하면 게시물에 자동으로 삽입됩니다!
팁: @기호를 입력하여 이 토론에 참여하는 사용자 이름을 자동으로 완성합니다.