Disliked{quote} So couldn't the brokers that have props like 5ers, FXIFY, ICmarkets just have the offering through their actual broker page instead of ex ICmarkets having a whole different thing set up like ICFunded when the EU etc would decide that props have to be regulated? And have the offering within the standards of the EU laws?Ignored
Personally, I am failing to see how a prop fits into the frame work, but I am not up to date since 2014 on the newer rules so there could be some things. The most clear is Australia, it is with certainty the prop firm requires a license there and they have said so as well. The other jurisdictions are far less clear and their framework doesn't really match. Canada being the most far out. The CFTC are saying they have jurisdiction, I question that personally but they have stated in the MFF case their position quite clearly and the fact that didnt vibrate through the industry shows just how mentally inept the US prop firms are (futures and CFDs). Their legal teams are better call saul tier it seems. FTMO seems to have heard the warning but others have not. For the EU its a bit like fitting a square peg in a round hole they believe it fits, they might have a point that it fits but there are many other whataboutisms to ask. For example, the AML CTF requirements dont fit the model, the KYC requirements dont fit the model and the "fair pricing" requirements likely do not fit the model. Add to this that PFOF is now illegal in the EU and it feels like they are trying to turn all these prop firms into market makers. If they do that, then even the best of the EU firms aren't equipped to effectively run and their sales will fall significantly due to the hurdles thrown in place to consumers.
My position is that using existing framework is not well thought out if you actually want to regulate this specific market place. But with bureaucrats its the likely pathway and that means that most props will be significantly offshore with no protections.
3