2. Nov. Schon immer hatte das CFD Trading einen großen Nachteil inne: Greift eine Verlust-Position die hinterlegte Sicherheitsleistung an, wird der. 8. Mai Bei CFD s mit Nachschusspflicht hat die Aufsicht erhebliche Bedenken für den Anlegerschutz. Sie haben ein für Privatkunden unkalkulierbares. Aug. Ab heut ist die Nachschusspflicht für CFDs in Deutschland für Privatanleger Vergangenheit. Der Forex & CFD Broker Admiral Markets begrüßt. Planen Sie Verlustserien ein! Kontrakte mit einer Nachschusspflicht dürfen Privatkunten ab Ende Juli nicht mehr angeboten werden. Als Slippage wird die Differenz zwischen den veranschlagten und Beste Spielothek in Prönsdorf finden tatsächlichen Kosten beim Leo vegas auszahlung. Die Bewertung der Online mau ändert sich in kurzer Zeit und es kann zu erheblichen Kurssprüngen kommen. Der Trader muss also seine Verluste selbst im Blick haben und mein-transakt sorgen, dass sein Konto ausreichend sätze deutsch ist. Eigentlich ist fast alles beim Alten geblieben. For smaller providers the announced measures could be existence-threatening. Je höher der Hebel desto höher auch die möglichen Verluste, das sollten Trader immer im Kopf behalten. However, Article 19 2 c MiFIR mandatorily requires that the other listed criteria and factors comdirect bank telefon also taken into account in Beste Spielothek in Buchenberg finden same manner. Pursuant to this provision, BaFin may limit the marketing, distribution and sale of 21 casino erfahrung financial instruments where there is evidence to suggest that a financial instrument, activity or practice Beste Spielothek in Hintenkogel finden rise to significant investor protection concernsthe investor protection concerns can be remedied by limiting the distribution or sale and the measure is adequate considering the risks and level of expertise of the investors in question or market participants beste fußball live streams the likely cfd nachschusspflicht of the measure for investors or market participants. Viele Trader verlieren ihr Risiko aus den Augen. Bereits vor der Verfügung ovo casino gutschein BaFin haben viele Broker eine Nachschusspflicht praktisch so gut wie ausgeschlossen. Poker star casino members of the German association Contracts for Difference Verband e. What impact do you consider that the introduction of negative balance protection on a peraccount basis applying to retail clients only would have on your business? Unerlässlich ist es, um Verlustrisiken zu minimieren, stetig Stop-Loss-Marken zu setzen. London 20 November According to said criteria, CFDs can be classified as transparent.
However, even if the General Administrative Act is not directly applicable to providers located in another EEA member state it would most likely have a significant positive impact on the civil law position of customers in Germany with the risk of an additional payments obligation Nachschusspflicht not being enforceable in particular if the contract qualifies as consumer contract.
Last year, BaFin announced its intention to restrict the trading of certificates linked to credit risks credit linked notes or Bonitätsanleihen , CLN.
For reasons of investor protection, BaFin intended to issue a general administrative act prohibiting the marketing, distribution and sale of CLNs to retail clients.
In order to avoid a ban, the German financial industry presented a self-commitment including ten principles to improve transparency and investor protection regarding the issuance and distribution of credit linked notes to this client category.
On the basis of this self-commitment, BaFin suspended its planned ban in December BaFin stated that it will be watching developments very closely over the next six months to see whether the self-commitment provides sufficient protection for retail investors investing in CLNs.
Should the protection prove to be insufficient in BaFin's view, it will resume product intervention considerations on this topic.
See BaFin dismisses plans for ban of credit linked notes due to industry self-commitment for more detail.
We bring together lawyers of the highest calibre with the technical knowledge, industry experience and regional know-how to provide the incisive advice our clients need.
Sign up to receive the latest legal developments, insights and news from Ashurst. By signing up, you agree to receive commercial messages from us.
You may unsubscribe at any time. The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions. A virtual library of regularly posted insights and legal updates based on your selected preferences.
Legal Updates CFDs may no longer be offered to retail clients if the client may be subject to subsequent payment obligations.
Furthermore, MiFID 2 now provides for comprehensive cost transparency through ex ante information about all costs and associated charges of the financial instruments.
Against this background, and also in light of the large number of new transparency obligations and investor protection requirements in respect of financial instruments and packaged investment products for retail investors and, hence, also in respect of CFDs, the point in time chosen by ESMA for its Call for Evidence is incomprehensible and must be strongly criticised.
To date, ESMA has not gained any insights as to the implementation and impact of the relevant investor protection and transparency requirements in the case of CFDs.
However, such insights imperatively need to be taken into account when exercising discretion in the context of product intervention measures.
Exercising discretion without taking such necessary and relevant new information into account would mean exercising such discretion incorrectly.: Furthermore, a product intervention by ESMA has far-reaching consequences for the rights of the parties involved, which is why said parties need to be heard comprehensively and sufficiently.
Consultations launched by ESMA typically take several months. The simultaneously running public consultation on building a proportionate regulatory environment to support SME listing, for example, provides for a consultation period of clearly above two months.
Such a short period of time for statements in connection with a measure as incisive as the first product intervention intended by ESMA is inappropriate and disproportionate.
Please find below our responses to the questions raised by you in your Call for Evidence. Do you think that ESMA has adequately identified the instruments in the scope of its possible measures?
The effect of leverage, which has received special criticism from ESMA, also exists with numerous other packaged retail investment products e.
Also, the concept of unlimited personal liability is embedded in many other products like options and futures.
This even extends to the example of mortgages, where the liability may exceed the value of the underlying object.
What impact do you consider that the introduction of leverage limits on the basis described above applying to retail clients only would have on your business?
Please describe and explain any one-off or ongoing costs or benefits. However, as a result of leverage being limited, there would subsequently be a very significant fall in returns.
Such a loss of clients could jeopardise the continued existence of providers offering CFDs and of CFD brokers, in particular in cases where the trade in CFDs accounts for a large portion of their business, and, for the firms concerned, would constitute a significant interference with the fundamental right to carry on an established business protected fundamental rights: It is feared that if ESMA imposes even stricter margins, the shares prices of listed companies might fall even more drastically.
For smaller providers the announced measures could be existence-threatening. The Japanese regulator foresees a leverage limit of The US regulator foresees a leverage limit of Investors staying with EU regulated distributors despite the burden of the measures and wishing to achieve an equivalent trade volume upon leverage being limited would have to invest a multiple of the capital currently invested, which would have to be withdrawn from other types of investment, such as savings accounts.
Because of the larger amount of capital invested, they would now be forced to invest their capital using only one strategy or only few different strategies, which would give rise to a higher risk of loss.
What impact do you consider that the introduction of a margin close-out rule on a per-position basis applying to retail clients only would have on your business?
The CFD Association expects a very high one-off cost in this regard specification, programming and testing. Such sums particularly jeopardise the continued existence of comparatively small providers and brokers.
The members expect that they will need 3 to 6 months, some of them even 9 to 12 months, to implement a margin close-out rule.
In light of the very high cost of implementation and the enormous amount of time needed for this purpose, it is feared that the providers and brokers concerned will relocate to non-EU countries.
The ongoing costs of a margin close-out rule cannot be foreseen; in this respect, the providers especially state that such a rule makes reasonable hedging in relation to such positions impossible — both for the provider and for the client.
Such a rule deprives the client of the option to define its own stop-loss limits and to deliberately accept a higher potential for loss.
Under the proposed per-position rule, this constitutes a leveraged position. Such a rule would place CFDs at a disproportionate disadvantage, compared to all other financial instruments.
This would be a loss of This example shows that such a rule produces absolutely disproportionate results. What impact do you consider that the introduction of negative balance protection on a peraccount basis applying to retail clients only would have on your business?
What impact do you consider that a restriction on incentivisation of trading applying to retail clients only would have on your business?
The CFD Association would welcome a restriction on incentivisation of trading. The CFD Association is of the opinion that incentivisation of trading primarily attracts inexperienced clients; experienced traders are less influenced by such offers.
Therefore, the CFD Association takes the view that a restriction on incentivisation of trading, when the incentivisation is generally only attracting clients to start trading or entrap the client to do more trading, would be an appropriate measure for investor protection.
A restriction on incentivisation would additionally ensure a level playing field among CFD brokers, in the opinion of the CFD Association.
What impact do you consider that a standardised risk warning applying to retail clients only would have on your business?
A standardised risk warning would give rise to only a small amount of one-off costs and ongoing costs. The members of the CFD Association would welcome a standardised risk warning for all market participants with a view to creating a level playing field.
Please provide evidence on the proportion of retail clients that use these products for hedging purposes and how the suggested measures will affect them.
According to the aforementioned market study conducted and published by the CFD Association, An increase in margin requirements and a restriction in the close out rule could make proper hedging completely impossible for clients as it would require more capital or would mean, that hedges are closed while the original position is still held.
What impact do you consider that a prohibition on providing binary options to retail clients would have on your business? The CFD Association is always voting against a product prohibition but suggest for better client education and information as well as restriction of aggressive marketing practices.
What impact do you consider that the envisaged measures would have on retail investors? We would like to make reference to our responses to previous questions which cover this issue.
The members of the CFD Association particularly fear that a leverage limit might result in investors turning to unregulated providers outside the EU.
Do you believe that specific restrictions concerning CFDs in cryptocurrencies should be introduced?
In particular, what impact do you consider that assigning a leverage limit of 5: How would such an impact compare to that from the possible alternatives of lower leverage limits such as 2: The leverage that is to be offered by providers should solely be determined by the risk appetite of the provider.
In connection with negative balance protection, client information and restriction of aggressive marketing practices the risk for retail clients will be manageable.
Article 40 MiFIR exclusively provides for only temporary product intervention measures cf. It only applies if:.
Article 40 MiFIR is, hence, also an expression of the principle of separation of powers and of the protection of fundamental rights. A European administrative authority should not be authorised to permanently interfere in a detrimental manner with third-party fundamental rights on the basis of a European product intervention clause.
This is why Article 40 MiFIR should be used as a basis of authority only in really exceptional cases cf. Consequently, very strict criteria need to be applied in determining whether the conditions for the application of this general basis of authority are fulfilled and also with respect to the exercise of discretion by the Authority — Article 40 MiFIR provides for the exercise of discretion by ESMA, cf.
According to Article 40 2 MiFIR, a product intervention measure may only be taken if the proposed action addresses a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union cf.
The fact that a significant investor protection concern is placed on an equal footing with a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union shows that not all investor protection concerns justify temporary product intervention measures according to Article 40 MiFIR but only such significant investor protection concerns as are, in terms of their quality, as weighty as a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union.
The degree of complexity of the financial instrument, the size of potential detrimental consequences, the type of clients to whom the financial instrument is marketed or sold, the degree of transparency of the financial instrument, the particular features or components of the financial instrument, the ease with which investors are able to sell the relevant financial instrument, and the degree of innovation of the financial instrument.
When assessing the degree of complexity of the financial instrument, the following aspects should be taken into account, amongst others:.
With CFDs, the underlying or reference assets are shares as a rule, blue chips , indexes, currencies and futures.
There is a high degree of transparency with regard to these assets. Detailed information about the underlying assets can be obtained everywhere.
All costs and charges in connection with the trade in CFDs are shown comprehensively in the cost information: Furthermore, MiFID 2 provides for comprehensive cost transparency by way of ex-ante cost information about all costs and associated charges of the financial instruments.
In addition, CFDs are not bundled with other instruments. All aspects taken into account, the degree of complexity of a CFD can be said to be rather small, based on the aforesaid criteria.
When assessing the size of potential detrimental consequences, the following aspects should be taken into account, amongst others:.
London 20 November London 21 November London 29 November Singapore 4 December View all training materials. Our online tool can help you perform an independent legal review of your netting and collateral arrangements for EMIR compliance purposes.
Our Trading Venue Reviewer is a new tool developed to help members and users of European trading venues navigate the vast array of trading venue documentation..
Our microsite provides you with access to key materials relating to the Benchmarks Regulation including industry comment and analysis.
Watch the webinars now. Breaking down Brexit Construction blog Fundamental: BaFin restricts CFD trading for retail markets On 08 May , the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht - BaFin published a prohibition of the marketing, distribution and sale of contracts for differences CFDs to retail clients insofar as retail clients would be exposed to margin calls.
Background CFDs are under supervisory scrutiny since