Lesson 05 of 6 · Market Mechanics
Regulation and Where Your Money Sits
18 min4 topics
Topic 1 of 4
By the end of this lesson
- Check which legal entity your account is actually with
- Explain segregated funds and compensation schemes
- Say what a licence does not cover
Before this lesson
A broker's homepage lists four or five regulators. Your account is with exactly one legal company, under exactly one of them, and it is frequently not the impressive one in the list. Finding out which takes about five minutes and decides what happens to your deposit if the firm fails.
Brand versus legal entity
The name on the website is a brand. Underneath it sits a group of separate companies, each licensed in a different place, each with its own rules, leverage caps and protections.
A typical structure looks like this:
| Entity | Licence | Typical max leverage | Compensation scheme |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broker Ltd (UK) | FCA | 1:30 retail | Up to £85,000 |
| Broker Europe (Cyprus) | CySEC | 1:30 retail | Up to €20,000 |
| Broker AU Pty | ASIC | 1:30 retail | None |
| Broker International (offshore) | Local licence | 1:500 to 1:2000 | None |
Now note which one you would be signed up to. Someone outside the UK, the EU and Australia who wanted the high leverage they saw advertised is with the bottom row. The FCA licence at the top is real, and it is not theirs.
How to check, in about five minutes
- Open the client agreement you accepted — not the homepage. The first page names a company.
- Find the registration number in the site footer, next to that company name.
- Search that number on the regulator's own register, not on the broker's site. The regulator's page will confirm the company name, the licence status and what it is licensed to do.
- Check the deposit page. The country your money is sent to is another strong hint about which entity holds it.
Good to know
The clearest single tell is the leverage you are offered. If the account gives you 1:500, it is not under a regulator that caps retail leverage at 1:30. The marketing and the licence cannot both be true.
What a regulator requires
Licences vary enormously. A serious regime generally imposes some combination of:
- Minimum capital, so the firm has a buffer of its own money.
- Segregation of client funds — covered in its own section below.
- Audited reporting, so the numbers are checked by someone outside the firm.
- Leverage caps and negative balance protection for retail clients.
- Limits on marketing, including bans on bonuses tied to deposits.
- A complaints route: an ombudsman or equivalent that can rule against the firm.
A light-touch offshore licence may require a registration fee, a local office address and very little else. It is still a licence. It is not the same product, and the word on the homepage is identical in both cases.
Note
Offshore does not automatically mean dishonest. Plenty of reputable firms operate offshore entities precisely so that clients outside capped jurisdictions can get the leverage they want. The point is to know which one you are in, and to price the difference in protection rather than assume it away.
Segregated client funds
Segregation means client money is held in bank accounts separate from the firm's own operating money, and cannot be used to pay the firm's staff, rent or debts.
It matters at exactly one moment: insolvency. If client funds were properly segregated, they are not part of the estate available to the failed firm's creditors, and administrators return them to clients. If they were mixed with company money, you are an unsecured creditor standing in a queue.
A compensation scheme is the separate, second layer: a fund that pays out, up to a cap, when segregated money is still missing or short. The FSCS in the UK and the ICF in Cyprus are the two most often cited, at £85,000 and €20,000 respectively. Most offshore regimes have no such fund at all.
Caution
Segregation is an obligation, not a guarantee. It relies on the firm complying and on the regulator checking. Where firms have failed badly, the shortfall has usually been in client money that was supposed to be segregated and was not — which is an argument for caring about the regulator's supervision, not just its existence.
The limits of protection
Even the strictest licence covers a narrower set of things than most people assume. What it does not do:
| It does not protect you from | Because |
|---|---|
| Losing money trading | That is the product working as intended |
| Slippage and widened spreads | Both are ordinary market conditions |
| A B-booked account | Acting as principal is legal and disclosed |
| Swap charges and commissions | Disclosed costs, agreed when you opened the account |
| Your own leverage decisions | Within the cap, sizing is yours |
What it does do is narrow but valuable: it makes the firm's failure survivable, gives you somewhere to complain that can actually compel an answer, and forces the disclosure that lets you check any of the rest.
So treat regulation as the floor of your due diligence and not the whole of it. A licensed broker can still be an expensive, badly executing, slow-to-withdraw broker — and those are the failures you are far more likely to meet than insolvency. Testing for them is the next lesson.
Key takeaways
- Your account is with one legal entity under one regulator — find it in the client agreement, then verify the number on the regulator's own register.
- The leverage you are offered is the quickest tell: 1:500 is not a 1:30-capped regime.
- Segregation separates your money from the firm's; a compensation scheme is a separate cap-limited backstop that most offshore regimes lack.
- No licence protects you from trading losses, slippage, swap or your own sizing. It is the floor of due diligence, not the whole of it.