ASIC wants to babysit your portfolio until 2037—are you buying it?

[Markus Vance]

So, ASIC is doubling down on their CFD crackdown, effectively trying to lock these rules in until 2037. They’re patting themselves on the back for that "91% drop in retail losses," but let’s be real for a second—are they actually protecting us, or are they just strangling the liquidity out of the market? NGL, every time a regulator talks about "retail safety," I see nothing but a push to keep the little guy away from the same leverage the institutions use to make their real money.

They’re coming for crypto perps now, too, essentially redefining "digital assets" just to make sure they can slap their rulebook on anything that moves. If you can't hedge your long and short positions because they’ve banned netting, you’re basically just gifting the spread and the margin maintenance fees to the brokers, not actually managing risk. It feels like they’re turning trading into a glorified slot machine where you’re guaranteed to lose because the "protective" rails they’re installing make it impossible to actually scalp or hedge effectively.

Everyone is cheering for "investor protection" like it’s the holy grail, but I’m seeing a massive overreach that just kills market efficiency. Since when did we decide the government should be the one deciding how much risk an adult is allowed to take with their own capital? Is it really "protection" if the barrier to entry is so high and the rules so restrictive that you’re forced to stay in the slow lane while the big players eat your lunch in the unregulated shadows?

 

[JulianCraft]

Classic regulatory theatre. ASIC can "babysit" whatever they want, but it won't protect anyone from sticky inflation and central banks printing us into a stagflation trap. By 2037 your nominal gains will probably be wiped out by purchasing power loss anyway once the RBA and Fed are forced to hike rates again to fight the next inflation wave. Absolute distraction from the actual macro disaster brewing.