WikiFX

Rispondi

As someone who evaluates brokers with an emphasis on due diligence and risk management, I want to be clear that when it comes to Tradition, the trading costs for indices—such as the US100—are not transparent based on the current public information. My review of their details highlights that Tradition specializes primarily in over-the-counter (OTC) instruments like FX forwards, commodities, Japanese index derivatives, and other structured or bespoke financial products. Importantly, indices such as the US100 are not directly listed among their supported trading instruments, and there’s a notable lack of accessible information on typical retail trading costs, including spreads, commissions, or overnight financing fees for products like indices. From my experience, this type of opacity requires a prudent approach, especially as Tradition’s core offering is not standardized spot index CFDs, but rather more complex products generally used in institutional or interdealer contexts. Their SFC regulation in Hong Kong is a strong point, but does not substitute for concrete, easily comparable trading cost data. For anyone specifically seeking to trade popular indices like the US100, I’ve found that engaging directly with Tradition’s support to request a detailed breakdown—potentially including negotiated brokerage fees and execution structures—would be essential before considering any commitment. In my own risk framework, I am reluctant to trade products or with firms where cost structure clarity is lacking, as unpredictable expenses can undermine even well-considered strategies. Always confirm the costs with the broker directly and proceed with caution if transparency is limited.