There are really two issues which have to be dealt with in this context. First, what is the appropriate level of regulatory protection for retail customers trading in futures and options currently covered by the Treasury Amendment. Second, what is the appropriate level of regulatory protection for markets that are available only to sophisticated, institutional market participants. Second, the last thing Congress wants to do is tamper with that portion of the Treasury Amendment which has produced the intended result. Third, in the almost fifteen years that NFA has been fighting boilerrooms with the CFTC, there has been one phenomenon we have witnessed over and over.
Scammers always seek the least regulated niche in which to ply their trade.
That s why they ve been leaving the futures industry in droves. Although we do not have jurisdiction over these firms, we always have and always will help in any way we can in such cases. However, if the Treasury Amendment is ultimately interpreted to exempt the retail sales of certain types of futures contracts from CEA regulation, Congress may as well declare open season on unsophisticated customers. Quick-talking con artists will flock to this newfound haven. Finally, that result most definitely was not what Congress intended when it adopted the Treasury Amendment and it cannot be, must not be, what Congress intends today.