DislikedThe new rules will make it very expensive for a new trader to learn the business. I know I wouldnt not have stayed in if I couldnt have learned at 400:1 and a couple of hundred bucks. To me the cost of tuition (the learning phase) would have been too high. That is the one thing missing in every argument about leverage. The anti-leverage advocates completely miss the logic of the cost of learning this business. The higher the leverage, the less money you risk, the cheaper your education. Thats my point.Ignored
Even if you know what you are doing, if you can't fund a decent size live account you won't be able to trade under the new rules. That's what the anti-leverage types are relying on. I am not anti-leverage, in fact I believe that the anti-leverage advocates are trying to knock the little guys out of the market. They are basically anti-democratic. Small retail traders are the stone in the heel of the institutional traders who want desperately to corner the market. If we are making money by scalping the market that has got to be costing somebody. It's a zero-sum equation: if there are winners there have to be losers. I suspect that due to the explosion of robots and trading systems in the last couple of years the number of winners on the retail side is increasing, while the institutional traders because of the huge volumes of currency they are trading, are carrying the market. Basically, they don't like the competition and have the influence to lobby the authorities for change. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm only an amateur, but that's they way I see it.