what should the authorities do to ensure that foreign brokers open representative offices in russia? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I think there have been several thousand complaints about the work of brokers to the Central Bank over several years. What is surprising is that for 25 years they have not been able to create the conditions to ensure that the money of Russian citizens does not flow into the accounts of foreign brokers. The current legislation on licensing conditions and conditions of work of brokers not capable to compete with tax benefits from offshore and confidentiality of operations on the accounts of clients of these offshore brokers - as consequence and lack of jurisdiction of the brokers-fraudsters, which also not small.
It is not only about this topic. Take at least our most fair court in the world. Hee)) So the problems are systemic. But we have to help the regulator to understand that Forex can be done in a civilized way and that there are examples in the world.
When you replenish the DC accounts through the left systems like web money, kiwi, yandex-money and others, this already deprives you of any guarantee. The licensed broker can offer only transfers via bank card and no other systems are out of the question. And don't forget about segregated accounts.
Bullshit! What's in it for you? By the same token, nothing!
1) The point is that it's a barter for a bargain.
2) They've already studied everything without our advice.
3) And they didn't think of doing a separate account themselves. They just didn't tell you.
4) All the general information they have is open, but it gives them nothing, not you or us, not anyone.
5) Also it makes no sense, "Corruption".
6) What is it? All these terms, have been around for a long time. Who are liquidity providers, they are brokers, banks, exchanges, markets, even the very shops are liquidity providers. Only some of them allow you to sell quickly, and others allow you to buy quickly. And you think that everything develops and works by itself without laws.
7) They do not ask for it, the main thing is that the clients do not ask for it either.
You have touched on a global subject, but you are thinking narrowly.
Point 1 is shifting the tax burden to speculators - all fair enough. The aim is to attract foreign brokers to legalise forex trading and income.
2. Yes not studied - foreign brokers stubbornly do not want to go to russia, at the same time the cb wants to stop the outflow of money from the country, which I generally approve of.
3. The point is that the cb is stating the problem of individuals in forex. Here I agree, the nominal account is probably separate as it is, but allow me, how can you fill a nominal account with no funds raised? For what? Nevertheless, the Federal Law requires a forex dealer before starting work / licensing to ensure that the account has not less than 100 million rubles, which is 1.6 million. Once again, why should a foreign and Russian broker provide a nominal account in the Bank of Russia if he does not have any funds raised? I think this is absurd.
4. That is the mystery. Why don't they want to simplify the licensing and tax burden on brokers in return for increasing the tax burden on client income? I don't understand that either. Maybe they are afraid that everyone will rush to play Forex? Let them play and sink, no problem, but the state will get something from it, and if someone wins - 35% of tax will be paid and he will be free.
5. that's right. It all looks unconvincing from the start.
6. I got a reply from regulator and they answered that the liquidity provider (quotes) is a legal entity which is not an aggregator of quotes but actually is an offshore broker. How can an offshore broker be a liquidity provider of ECN trading?
7. Of course it is narrow. I think as a physical trader. I see the weaknesses in the formation of quotes and seek assurances that ECN is not just a lure label but a real trading mechanism with guarantees of client control of broker quotes delivered to the client's trading terminal.Yes, the legislation is outdated. It is not aware of ECN trading on the market. Accordingly, the broker does not interfere in the formation of quotes. And standard accounts are all a scam, everyone agrees on that.
Open a standard bank account and you will see how everybody agrees :) Then you can go on about it with the law...
Point 1 is shifting the tax burden to speculators - all fair enough. The aim is to attract foreign brokers to legalise forex trading and income.
2. Yes not studied - foreign brokers stubbornly do not want to go to russia, at the same time the cb wants to stop the outflow of cash from the country, which I generally approve of.
3. The point is that the cb is stating the problem of individuals in forex. Here I agree, the nominal account is probably separate as it is, but allow me, how can you fill a nominal account with no funds raised? For what? Nevertheless, the Federal Law requires a forex dealer before starting work / licensing to ensure that the account has not less than 100 million rubles, which is 1.6 million. Once again, why should a foreign and Russian broker provide a nominal account in the Bank of Russia if he does not have any funds raised? I think this is absurd.
4. That is the mystery. Why don't they want to simplify the licensing and tax burden on brokers in return for increasing the tax burden on client income? I don't understand that either. Maybe they are afraid that everyone will rush to play Forex? Let them play and sink, no problem, but the state will get something from it, and if someone wins - 35% of tax will be paid and he will be free.
5. That's right. It all looks unconvincing from the start.
6. I got a reply from regulator and they answered that the liquidity provider (quotes) is a legal entity which is not an aggregator of quotes but actually is an offshore broker. How can an offshore broker be a liquidity provider of ECN trading?
7. Of course it's narrow. I think like a physical trader. I see the weaknesses in the formation of quotes and seek guarantees that ECN is not just a label for lure, but a real trading mechanism with guarantees of client control of the broker quotes delivered to the client's trading terminal.1. Yes, the tax burden should be shifted to speculators i.e. you and us because we do not pay enough))) 13% is good enough for me. Attracting foreign brokers to shift the tax burden onto us is a masterpiece :) We do not have our own brokers, it's true )))).
2. Of course they do not want to - you have to pay 100 million roubles and the SRO fee is 150,000 roubles a month, nevertheless they are free to work in Russia. What capital outflows you are talking about :) Do not confuse illegally earned money or money stolen in Russia and then withdrawn. Foreign investors pay 30 percent tax in Russia and ours 13 percent - as many foreign investors as ours trade through the Moscow Exchange.
3) That's absurd in your head )))) Why do not you think it is absurd that he should have 300 million dollars on his account when he opens an ordinary bank in Russia? The Central Bank is worried about gamers - that is the problem of individuals.
4. I am speechless :) I can see that he has not paid taxes. Of course they can play - and merge, banks will pay them for loans, lenders (they are gamblers, they will be in bondage anyway). They have to have enough on their account for trading with minimal risks, then they have to pay 35 percent of taxes once a month and they have to leave money for their families (food at least), and they have to put clothes on sometimes, save for holidays, etc. - and they are free :)
5. ........... I will say nothing about ...........
6. How can an offshore liquidity provider be a legal entity - this is nonsense, people still climb trees for bananas and fish with spears.)
7. You speak narrow :)) I am out of my depth, "trader-physicist" - I will take note, I will scare the children when they do not obey, everything is uglier than Baba Yaga. ECN is the nameplate.)
PS. When you smoke, take a little less ......
Open a standard bank account and see how everyone agrees :) and then you'll be poking at the law.
So we are talking about brokers who are not credit institutions. Do not Russian banks providing brokerage services (or Forex dealer) have ECN accounts?
1. Yes, shift the tax burden on speculators, that is, on you and us, because we do not pay enough))) I prefer 13%. Attracting foreign brokers to shift their tax burden onto us is a masterpiece :) We do not have our own brokers, it's true )))).
2. Of course they do not want to - you have to pay 100 million roubles and the SRO fee is 150,000 roubles a month, nevertheless they are free to work in Russia. What capital outflows you are talking about :) Do not confuse illegally earned money or money stolen in Russia and then withdrawn. Foreign investors pay 30 percent tax in Russia and ours 13 percent - as many foreign investors as ours trade through the Moscow Exchange.
3) That's absurd in your head )))) Why do not you think it is absurd that he should have 300 million dollars on his account when he opens an ordinary bank in Russia? The Central Bank is worried about gamers - that is the problem of individuals.
4. I am speechless :) I can see that he has not paid taxes. Of course they can play - and merge, banks will pay them for loans, lenders (they are gamblers, they will be in bondage anyway). They have to have enough on their account for trading with minimal risks, then they have to pay 35 percent of taxes once a month and they have to leave money for their families (food at least), and they have to put clothes on sometimes, save for holidays, etc. - and they are free :)
5. ........... I will say nothing about ...........
6. How can an offshore liquidity provider be a legal entity - this is nonsense, people still climb trees for bananas and fish with spears.)
7. You speak narrow :)) I am out of my depth, "trader-physicist" - I will take note, I will scare the children when they do not obey, everything is uglier than Baba Yaga. ECN is the nameplate.)
PS. When you smoke, put on a little less ......
Who has anything against it? Everyone has an opinion. Some agree and some disagree. There is no point in arguing.
So we are talking about brokers who are not credit institutions. What about ECN accounts? Russian banks that provide brokerage services (or forex dealer).
What difference does it make if banks that provide liquidity called forex dealers, the liquidity they provide has not changed. And there will be no ECN accounts in Russia, so why would they lead speculators by the nose?)
So who's against it? Everyone has an opinion. I agree or disagree with them. I do not see the point in arguing.
That's right - everyone has an opinion, the main thing is that it should not contradict reason ...
By the way the Chinese experience - pensioners there quietly lose their deposits at forex trading as unqualified investors and nothing happens, and if they earn money they pay taxes. Of course, the Chinese market volume of brokerage services in forex trading is not comparable with ours, but there are examples of creating a comfortable climate for the work of neo-offshore brokers - Australia and China at least.
You can stop writing nonsense for a while )))). Trading on margin at Forex has been banned in China since 2008, if I am not mistaken, and is similar to gambling, which is also prohibited.