Product
CFD, Rolling Spot FX, deliverable foreign exchange or stock market future?
Law · Regulatory Requirements · Part I
Who is allowed to offer CFD and FX trading?
EU, UK, Switzerland and USA: Provider roles, authorisation, capital and cross-border market access – with verifiable sources and clear borders.
On this page
A brand can have several regulatory realitiesThe regulatory audit trailFX is a market term – not a single contractWho is allowed to provide such services?Types of providers: Who is responsible for what?Licensing, registration and operating under a principal firmEU, UK, Switzerland and USA in comparisonUSA: Why CFDs are treated differently – and FX is not blanket prohibitedCross-border services: authorisation and market accessReverse Solicitation: The Initiative Must Actually Come From the CustomerCapital requirements: Minimum threshold is not the total fundingThe Important Protection Requirements for Retail CFDsPerpetuals: The substance decides, not the labelRequirements beyond capital and licensingResearch: Bringing Registers, Warnings and Timeline TogetherThe scope of Part I and topics for further analysisSourcesPart I · Editorial status 30.09.2026 · Focus: Retail CFDs and Margin/Rolling Spot FX. Product, customer status and contract company determine the individual case. The comparisons are an orientation; national detailed rules and current register entries are checked separately.
A brand can have several regulatory realities
A vendor may present an EU investment firm, a UK company and a third-country dealer under the same brand. What counts for the user is the company that concludes its concrete contract. A license number in the footer of the group does not yet answer this question. An available MetaTrader app or an accessible trading server is also no proof of the contractual partner’s permission.
On 25 September 2026, the FCA described a current supervisory concern: UK authorisations were being used as a signal of trust for affiliated overseas entities, even though their clients were not automatically dealing with a UK-regulated firm or receiving its protections. The authority reported that 21 CFD firms had already been closed since 2025, with three further firms surrendering their permissions.
[REG-UKBADGE]Our practical consequence: examine the company, domain, registry status, permitted activity and target country together. A register hit is a starting point. It does not replace the examination of whether the present offer actually originates from this company.
The regulatory audit trail
Company
Who is a contractual partner in the account opening contract?
Activity
Mediation, execution, proprietary business, advice or administration?
Customer status
Private customer, professional client or institutional participant?
Market access
What is the basis for the offer in the country of residence?
Protection rules
What are the product restrictions, financial management and complaint mechanisms?
These six questions are an editorial test method. They do not generate an automatic admissibility decision. Missing information is an open question and should not be replaced by the good reputation of a brand.
FX is a market term – not a single contract
| Offer | What the customer receives economically | What to clarify regulatoryly first |
|---|---|---|
| CFD / Contract for difference | Contractual settlement of a change in value; no automatic acquisition of ownership of the underlying | Derivative, counterparty, investment service and product intervention |
| Rolling Spot FX / Margin FX | Ongoing, frequently leveraged currency exposures | Settlement, actual delivery and legal definition; the word “spot” is not enough |
| Deliverable foreign exchange transaction | Actual currency exchange, for example for a payment | Autonomous classification; Derivatives rules not transferred unchecked |
| Exchange FX Future or Option | Standardised derivative contract with own market and clearing structure | Access, intermediaries and product-related rules |
| Perpetual / perpetual contract | Exposure without ordinary fixed maturity, partly with funding | Concrete contract characteristics; product name does not decide on CFD protection |
The FCA aggregates leveraged rolling spot FX contracts in the relevant retail regulatory area with CFDs and related speculative instruments. The US has its own off-exchange retail forex regime. “FX” on a website therefore does not yet say which set of rules the contract is subject to.
[REG-UKCOBS][REG-USFOREX]Who is allowed to provide such services?
In the EU, the professional provision of investment services generally requires prior permission from the competent authority of the home country. The public register shall indicate the scope of activities. ESMA maintains the Union-wide overview but does not grant a general ‘ESMA broker license’. An investment firm or a credit institution entitled to do so may assume the relevant role; legal exceptions shall be closely examined in relation to the specific transaction.
[REG-MIFID5]For German securities institutions, § 15 WpIG is the central permission standard. Deposit, banking or other business may trigger other regimes. A software contract, a trading register entry or a technical white label agreement does not create a substitute authorization for regulated services.
[REG-WPIG15]As an audit rule, a payment, money laundering or crypto registration should not be understood unchecked as eligibility for CFD execution. Allow the specific investment service and instrument category to be displayed in the relevant register.
Types of providers: Who is responsible for what?
| Role | Function | Regulatory issue |
|---|---|---|
| Dealer / Principal / Market Maker | Closes the customer contract as a counterparty; can hedge risks externally | Which permission covers trading on own account and the customer relationship? |
| Executive agent / commissioner | Performs business for customers, depending on the form of the contract, in a foreign or own name | Which execution or commission service is permitted? |
| Intermediary / Introducing Broker | Leads customers or orders to another provider | What is the right to placement, commitment and remuneration? |
| Tied agent | Provides certain services for the account and under the liability of an institution | Checking register entry, liable institution and limits of activity |
| Portfolio or Copy Trading Manager | Makes or controls decisions for the customer account | Examine administrative authority separately from the broker’s permission |
| White label operators | Uses technology and, where applicable, services of another company | Who is the legal service provider, who accepts money and who is liable? |
| Platform/technical provider | Provides software, server, interfaces or evaluation | Determine technical role and regulated financial services separately |
The table is a role card, not an exhaustive list of legal license classes. STP and ECN describe claimed processes or accesses; A-Book, B-Book and Hybrid describe risk treatment. A fully externally hedged CFD position may still have a broker as its legal counterparty. The marketing word does not determine permission or capital level. Agent, Principal and Broker Models · Order Expiration and Hedging →
Licensing, registration and operating under a principal firm
A permission specifies permitted services, instruments, customer categories and, where applicable, restrictions. „Full licensed broker is too inaccurate for this. Advice, portfolio management, order acceptance/forwarding, execution and trading on own account are different functions. The specific notification and entry in the register must match the actual offer.
MiFID II allows tied intermediaries in a structure of responsibility: the institution remains fully responsible for acts of the intermediary on its behalf; the intermediary must disclose its role and the institution represented and be in the register.
[REG-TIED]Germany limits the WpIG exemption for a tied agent to investment brokerage, investment advice or placement business under the statutory conditions. A liability umbrella is therefore not a blanket way to act as a CFD counterparty, accept customer money or provide any services.
[REG-WPIG3]The same word “broker” can refer to other permission architectures internationally. A British permission entry, a Swiss bank authorisation and a US RFID registration are not interchangeable certificates.
EU, UK, Switzerland and USA in comparison
| Legal area | Access / supervision | Special features for users |
|---|---|---|
| EU/EEA context | National licensing authority; MiFID II framework; cross-border access under the relevant internal market procedure | ESMA is not a substitute for the national registry; additionally check product intervention and customer status |
| UK | UK regulatory framework and matching FCA permissions; banks may additionally be subject to PRA supervision | EU Passporting is not considered as general UK access today |
| Switzerland | FINMA licence per institution; FIDLEG/FINIG and banking law per activity | Swiss based foreign exchange traders require bank approval according to FINMA; advisor registration is something else |
| USA | Instrument-dependent CFTC/NFA, SEC or other competent authorities | Retail FX is possible under specific rules; typical OTC retail CFDs cannot be offered as in Europe |
EU / Germany: Who supervises what?
MiFID II is a directive; national laws implement its framework. MiFIR is a regulation with directly applicable provisions, including for product intervention. A permission from the origin authority must be distinguished from the possibility of selling certain products to certain customers. Germany combines the authorisation framework, for example, with WpIG and the relevant conduct obligations as well as the BaFin product intervention.
The ESMA measure of 2018 was temporary; national measures subsequently took over the protection. For Germany, the BaFin General Order of 23.07.2019 is the central point of reference. Don’t just name the expired original ESMA decision as today’s national legal basis.
[REG-WPIG15][REG-BAFIN][REG-PERPETUAL]UK: Autonomous legal area
The former EU passport does not replace today’s general UK entitlement after Brexit. Transitional and settlement regimes have their own limits. Decisive are the status and permissions of the specific company as well as the permitted handling of the affected customers.
[REG-UKEXIT][REG-UKPERG]The FCA rules for retail CFDs and rolling spot FX include margin requirements, account-related closing and negative balance rules, and advertising and incentive limits. Crypto derivatives are subject to their own retail ban within the scope of COBS 22.6. The older statement “crypto CFDs up to leverage 2 are also allowed in the UK” would therefore be incorrect; crypto ETNs must also be assessed separately.
[REG-UKCOBS][REG-UKCRYPTO]Switzerland: Authorisation and conduct obligations
FINMA explains that Swiss-based online foreign exchange traders require a bank permit. A Swiss bank account or a contact address of a foreign provider does not prove this approval; a de facto branch can trigger its own requirements.
[REG-CHFX]Investment firms form a different category of institutions. Whether this or banking law applies follows from instrument and actual activity. In the case of cross-border financial services, inter alia, FIDLEG conduct obligations and, where applicable, the registration of client advisors must be examined. FINMA describes differentiated exceptions for providers supervised abroad who exclusively serve professional or institutional Swiss clients. A registry of advisors does not grant a bank authorisation.
[REG-CHSECURITIES][REG-CHADVISER]USA: Why CFDs are treated differently – and FX is not blanket prohibited
The frequent statement “CFD/Forex trading is prohibited in the US” mixes different products. The U.S. retail customer may trade currencies under the relevant framework, including through regulated off-exchange retail forex counterparties. The CFTC names RFEDs, Forex-providing FCMs, and legally-approved other regulated counterparties. Mediation, administration or pools can also trigger registration requirements.
[REG-USFOREX]Typical European OTC CFD offerings, on the other hand, cannot simply be transferred to ordinary US retail customers. For contracts classified as swaps, CEA § 2(e) prohibits a participant without Eligible Contract Participant status from concluding outside the DCM exchange framework provided for by law. The CFTC has applied this rule to off-exchange swaps offered through apps. In the case of securities-related products, separate SEC/Security-based swap rules are added; the specific contract determines the jurisdiction.
[REG-USSWAPS][REG-USSEC]The regulatory reason is thus a different product and market access architecture, no technical incompetence of the platform and no general ban on all currency trading. ECP is a legal US participant category and not simply the EU status of “professional customer”. A foreign broker license does not create a US exception.
For readers, this means that “CFDs are freely available for US retail customers” deserves an accurate examination of the contract, platform, participant status and responsible registration. Merely renaming to “Forex”, “Swap” or “Perpetual” does not answer the eligibility question.
Cross-border services: authorisation and market access
Within the EU, an appropriately permitted company can provide services in another Member State via the MiFID II notification procedure. It shall notify the country of destination and the programme of activity to its home authority, which shall forward the information to the host authority. Only activities covered by the scope of authorisation are covered. This is the core of the so-called passporting.
[REG-PASSPORT]For a branch, there is a separate procedure and division of functions of supervision. The term EU passport is not a worldwide distribution permit. The EEA context must be examined by taking into account the legal assumption and procedures there; the UK, Switzerland and the USA are not EU Member States.
[REG-BRANCH]In the case of a third-country undertaking, national access rules, where applicable branch, permitted exemptions and the customer category must be examined separately. A well-known parent company in the EU does not cure the conclusion of contracts with another, outside licensed company. The EU third-country framework for certain professional customers is also not a freely usable retail passport.
Own test examples: An EU company with suitable permission and documented notification must be tested differently than an offshore dealer who wins German customers via advertising. An online form can look technically identical in both cases. Therefore, in addition to the license, always write down the basis of access to your country.
Reverse Solicitation: The Initiative Must Actually Come From the Customer
Reverse Solicitation in the MiFID II third country framework discussed here refers to a service on the exclusive initiative of the customer. Article 42 refers to the retail customers referred to therein and, on request, to customers classified as professional in the Union. For the specifically initiated service, the branch authorisation requirement specified therein is omitted and does not become a general distribution passport.
[REG-REVERSE42]ESMA points out that active addressing, advertising or promotion by the third-country provider object to the exclusive customer initiative. A clause or “I agree” box cannot reinterpret prior recruitment on its own initiative. The actual initiation is decisive.
[REG-REVERSE]| Own fall sketch | What would be investigated |
|---|---|
| Customer independently finds a company and asks for a certain service | Document initiation and specific inquiry; national requirements remain to be examined |
| Customer follows a provider advertisement directed to his country | Previous Address speaks against exclusively own initiative |
| Advertising partner leads the customer to the third-country provider | Investigate commissioning, proximity and actual advertising; do not hide the mediation chain |
| In onboarding, self-initiative is confirmed via checkbox | No substitute for the actual circumstances |
| Existing customer receives new product categories advertised | The exception does not automatically extend to new active marketing |
The examples are questions of inquiry, not binding individual judgments. Whether other jurisdictions know a comparable exception must be examined on the basis of their own law. „Reverse solicitation worldwide is not a reliable standard argument.
Capital requirements: Minimum threshold is not the total funding
| Framework/Activity | Selected minimum base | Limit of the statement |
|---|---|---|
| EU: certain non-client money/securities services | EUR 75,000 initial capital | Art. 9 IFD; concrete permission and national implementation |
| EU: other firms not covered by the higher/lower category | EUR 150,000 initial capital | No general “STP license” |
| EU: Trade on own account / firm takeover obligation | EUR 750,000 initial capital | Further legal categories possible; classification of the business decisive |
| UK: certain services, as far as no higher category applies | GBP 75,000 Permanent Minimum Capital | MIFIDPRU 4.4; observe highest relevant category |
| UK: in particular client money/assets in the MiFID business | GBP 150,000 Permanent Minimum Capital | For own account, the higher category can take effect |
| UK: Dealing on Own Account | GBP 750,000 Permanent Minimum Capital | Only selected CFD/FX relevant classes, not all UK capital levels |
| Switzerland: Bank | 10 million CHF fully paid-up minimum capital | Bank approval; ongoing requirements in addition |
| Switzerland: securities house | 1,5 million CHF fully paid-up minimum capital | Other institution category, no alternative standard for each FX dealer |
| USA: RFED / Retail Forex FCM | 20 million USD Net Capital + relevant surcharges | In addition, 5% of retail forex customer liabilities over 10 million. USD; further requirements possible |
EU basis: Art. 9 IFD. For Germany, § 17 WpIG specifies EUR 75,000, 150,000 and 750,000 according to the facts there; individual German assignments may not be derived solely from the shortened EU table. This table is not a complete capital manual.
[REG-IFD][REG-WPIG17]The UK amounts are regulatory minimum capital requirements under MIFIDPRU 4.4 and no fees for a license. Swiss bank and investment firm are separate categories; the US figure is net capital for the retail forex business mentioned. Currencies and metrics are therefore not directly comparable as a quality ranking.
[REG-UKCAPITAL][REG-CHBANK][REG-CHSECURITIES][REG-USCAPITAL]For NFA forex dealer members, the $20 million base with the simple retail surcharge is not yet a complete bill. Section 11 also considers certain liabilities vis-à-vis ECP counterparties and related or dealer counterparties with additional surcharges. The highest relevant amount and other requirements for FCMs shall be assessed.
[REG-NFACAPITAL]On an ongoing basis, higher own funds may be required. In the IFR framework for class 2, the highest amount of permanent minimum, fixed cost requirement and K factors is in principle relevant; for small and non-interconnected class 3 firms, the relevant simplified comparison applies. Large or correspondingly classified companies can be subject to the banking framework. Additional prudential requirements shall be considered separately.
[REG-IFR]The UK regime also distinguishes minimum capital, fixed costs and, where applicable, K-factor requirements by company classification. A single minimum number occupies neither sufficient current capital coverage nor liquidity for stress or orderly resolution.
[REG-UKOWN]Our own worked example, not a finding about an institution: a EUR 750,000 permanent minimum, a EUR 900,000 fixed overheads requirement and a EUR 1.2 million K-factor requirement produce a highest base requirement of EUR 1.2 million in this simplified Class 2 comparison — neither EUR 750,000 nor the sum of EUR 2.85 million. Additional requirements, the quality of capital and other rules must then be assessed separately.
For users: Supervisory own funds belong to the institution. You are neither your separate customer balance nor the investor compensation automatically. High minimum values alone do not prove fair execution.
The Important Protection Requirements for Retail CFDs
| Level | What is regulated | Practical question |
|---|---|---|
| MiFID II / national implementation | Permission, organisation, investor information, client review and execution | What service do I receive and what obligations follow from it? |
| MiFIR / national product intervention | Restrictions on the marketing, distribution and sale of certain products | Can this product be sold to me under these conditions? |
| IFD / IFR or relevant banking regime | Capital, risks and ongoing prudential requirements | What framework applies to the specific company? |
| BaFin General Order / FCA COBS | Retail CFD-specific limits within the respective scope | Which Margin, Closure, Loss and Advertising Rules Apply? |
The original ESMA protection architecture specifies maximum leverage of 30 for large currency pairs, 20 for other currency pairs, gold and large indices, 10 for other commodities and smaller indices, 5 for individual stocks and other benchmarks, and 2 for cryptocurrencies. In addition, account-related 50% margin close-out, negative balance protection, incentive limitation and standardised risk warnings. The specific national definitions and measures remain relevant; the UK crypto derivatives case follows its separate ban.
[REG-ESMA2018][REG-BAFIN][REG-UKCRYPTO]These levers are upper limits in the respective area of application, no claim to the maximum leverage. The measures protect retail customers; a change to a professional status can change the applicable protection rules. Such a classification merits a separate examination. Margin, Stop-out and Gap Risk in the Account Lab
Perpetuals: The substance decides, not the label
ESMA recalls with ESMA35-243228190-8024 of 24.02.2026 that each derivative offered should be assessed for national CFD product intervention on the basis of its characteristics. Products advertised as ‘perpetual futures’ or ‘perpetual contracts’ may be included if they meet the relevant CFD definition. Not every future is therefore a CFD.
A listing of trading venues, a funding mechanism or voluntary safeguards do not decide this question alone. ESMA also highlights narrow target markets and appropriate distribution strategy, appropriateness testing of unsolicited performance, management of conflicts of interest and PRIIPs key information document for the retail distribution concerned.
[REG-PERPETUAL]Our practical question to a provider: “Which legal product analysis does your classification carry, which national product intervention applies, and why do target customers and advertising fit this product?” An advertising note “no CFD” does not answer the question without a comprehensible contract analysis.
Requirements beyond capital and licensing
MiFID II requires a viable organisation: internal controls, risk management, compliance, record keeping and protection of client funds/instruments, where applicable. Relocations must not conceal responsibility. A white label technology therefore does not change the question of who actually fulfills customer obligations.
[REG-ORGANIZATION]appropriateness and suitability are different tests. In the case of non-advised services, the assessment of knowledge and experience is paramount. Investment advice and portfolio management are in particular financial circumstances, loss-bearing capacity and targets/risk tolerance. A passed questionnaire is not a promise that a product is safe.
[REG-SUITABILITY]Own audit questions for the offer: Who is responsible for account management and money movements? Which conflicts arise from remuneration and counterparty status? Which prices and execution methods are agreed? How can orders, fees and complaints be documented? These issues connect the legal framework with market anatomy. MAM/PAMM · Copy Trading · Cost knowledge →
Research: Bringing Registers, Warnings and Timeline Together
Start with the full legal name in the contract. Complete the registration/permission number, address, domains and customer state. Compare this information with the official register and its contact information. A cloning company can copy real names and numbers. No warning found does not mean: permission found.
| Investigation | Objective | Limits of statement |
|---|---|---|
| Official register of origin | Status, activities, restrictions and identity | Hit must match the actual company and domain |
| Official market access in the customer state | Notification or other relevant access basis | Origin permit alone does not answer this |
| Alerts and I-scan context | Anomalies, Identity Abuse and Research Approaches | Separate warning, suspicion and final finding |
| Regulatory timeline | Development, publication and application data | Differentiate proposal, statement and mandatory standard |
CONSUMER INtelligence
I-Scan · unmasked.info
The overview classifies I-Scan in the research on anomalies and information asymmetry. Compare results with original sources and identity.
I-scan overview ↗REGISTER RECORDS
ESMA lookup · 3RMCN
The ESMA lookup at 3RMCN provides the gateway to the registry search. For the final assessment, use the official ESMA/source entry, scope of activities and data.
Opening ESMA lookup ↗REGULATORY PATHFINDER
erlaubnisantrag.com
Approval process and regulatory timeline related consideration. Regulatory timeline open directly and switch to further requirements.
Regulatory Timeline open ↗These network offerings are editorial research aids, no supervisory authorities and no substitute for primary registries. The references open external offers; no live register data or automatic legality ratings are loaded here.
For the UK, this is FCA register ↗ a direct official entry; for Switzerland the FINMA lists ↗. For US derivatives brokers and forex counterparties leads NFA BASIC for the registration search. Document date and reference; re-examine status changes before a contract.
The scope of Part I and topics for further analysis
Part I combines provider role, permission, capital base, market access and product restriction. The next indentations concern customer funds and insolvency, specific duties of conduct, professional customer status, execution quality and individual cross-border cases.
For your own investigation, you can already create a small dossier: contractual partners, permitted activities, country of destination access, product definition, customer status and relevant protection measure – each with its source and date. Where proof is missing, the point remains explicitly open. Consumer Protection · Structure of knowledge and next deepenings →
Explore related topics
Social, Copy and Mirror Trading: Overall View · CFD Loss Rates: Calculation and Significance
Sources & scope
Check the evidence.
- MiFID II · Art. 5: Permission and Register
EU legal framework; licensing by competent national authorities. Retrieved 30.09.2026.
Open the source ↗ - Germany · § 15 WpIG
Permission for investment services; statutory exceptions and other permission regimes to be observed separately.
Open the source ↗ - Germany · § 17 WpIG: initial capital
German implementation; concrete facts more important than the marketing label of a broker. Retrieved 30.09.2026.
Open the source ↗ - EU · IFD, Directive (EU) 2019/2034, Article 9
EU initial capital by activity; examine national implementation. Selected classes of activity; Germany additionally shown by § 17 WpIG.
Open the source ↗ - EU · IFR, Regulation (EU) 2019/2033
Official summary of current own funds, grades and K factors; no calculation for a particular institution.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Art. 34: Freedom to provide services
English article text under language path /fr/; scope of permission and notification, no worldwide market access.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Article 35: Branch
Procedures for establishments; division of responsibilities between the home and host countries.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Art. 42: Exclusive customer initiative
Third country rule for specific EU customers; no universal exception for any jurisdiction or product.
Open the source ↗ - ESMA · Reverse Solicitation, 13.01.2021
ESMA35-43-2509; contractual clauses and consent boxes do not cure prior active address.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Art. 29: Contractually tied agents
Responsibility of the liable institution and obligation to register; national boundaries remain relevant.
Open the source ↗ - Germany · § 3 para 2 WpIG: Tied mediator
Limited activities for the account and under the liability of an institution; no own comprehensive CFD dealer status.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Art. 16: Organization
Organization, controls, records and protection of client assets; details in supplementary rules.
Open the source ↗ - MiFID II · Art. 25: appropriateness and suitability
Knowledge/experience of non-advised services; additional criteria for advice and portfolio management.
Open the source ↗ - BaFin · CFD General Order of 23.07.2019
National retail CFD product intervention, effective from 01.08.2019. Check national definitions and detailed interpretation with the original instrument.
Open the source ↗ - BaFin · Guidelines on the CFD General Provisions
Additional interpretation for reading. The overview does not incorporate unread changes to the detailed guidelines.
Open the source ↗ - ESMA · Original CFD intervention, 01.06.2018
Historical leverage and protection architecture; examining today's application via national measures.
Open the source ↗ - ESMA · Perpetuals and CFD protection, 24.02.2026
ESMA35-243228190-8024, 3 pages in full: product characteristics, national product intervention, target market, appropriateness, conflicts of interest and PRIIPs.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · COBS 22.5: Retail CFD Rules
Handbook rules including Rolling Spot FX; current product and customer limitations are relevant.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · COBS 22.6: Crypto derivatives
Prohibition of retail marketing, distribution and sales in the area of application; do not equate with all crypto-ETNs. Current call 30.09.2026.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · MIFIDPRU 4.4: Permanent Minimum Capital
Updated 06/04/2026. Selected CFD/FX relevant activity classes; other categories, such as Depositary or Targeted Support, are not fully presented.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · MIFIDPRU 4.3: Current own funds
Ongoing requirements and SNI/non-SNI differentiation; check ICARA and possible additional requirements separately.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · Temporary Permissions / Brexit
EU passporting is not treated as today’s general UK market access; transition and settlement regimes are limited.
Open the source ↗ - FCA · Abuse of Permission Status, 25.09.2026
Official current findings on misleading transfer of trust in UK authorisation to affiliated foreign companies; no reproach against any cross-border offer.
Open the source ↗ - FINMA · Online forex traders
FINMA explains bank authorisation for Swiss-based foreign exchange traders and possible de facto branches.
Open the source ↗ - FINMA · Authorisation requirements for banks
At least 10 million CHF fully paid-up capital; additional current own funds, liquidity, management, controls and audits.
Open the source ↗ - FINMA · Authorisation requirements for investment firms
At least 1,5 million CHF fully paid-up capital; institution-specific scope of approval. No equivalence with the FX bank approval.
Open the source ↗ - FINMA · Customer advisors and cross-border services
FinSA/FIDLEG, Register of Advisors and differentiated exceptions; Registry entry is not a banking or investment firm permit.
Open the source ↗ - SEC · Swaps/Security-Based Swap Scheme
Official explanation of SEC/CFTC jurisdiction; historical overview, no assumption of old transition periods.
Open the source ↗ - PERG 2: Authorisation and Regulated Activities
Activities, instruments and permission regime; exceptions only on the basis of specific facts.
Open the source ↗ - CFTC · Off-Exchange Retail Forex
Registered RFED/FCM and other regulated counterparties; no statement that all foreign exchange transactions are prohibited.
Open the source ↗ - NFA · Financial Requirements Section 11
Current Rulebook for Forex Dealer Members: Adjusted Net Capital and Additional Commitment Categories. Retrieved 30.09.2026.
Open the source ↗ - CFTC · Retail Forex Rulebook and Capital
20 million USD Net Capital plus 5% of certain customer liabilities above 10 million. USD; US forex counterparties, not a universal international broker standard.
Open the source ↗ - CFTC · Unauthorized off-exchange swaps, 2020
Official application of CEA § 2(e): Non-ECP swaps require the statutory exchange framework. The regime and jurisdiction depend on the instrument.
Open the source ↗ - FINMA · Authorised institutions
Official lists; accurate category and legal entity check.
Open the source ↗
Explore related topics