How to rebuild trust in a trading brand when clients expect the worst

Every retail trading brand opens the conversation with a confession. A provider of contracts for difference (CFDs) in the UK or the EU has to tell prospective clients what share of its own retail accounts lost money. In all nine firms’ figures that Trading Business Review, a Unita Media title, read on 7 October 2026, it was more than half[1].

Add published sanctions, offshore group companies and a prop-firm case that reached a US federal court, and many traders arrive expecting the worst. Partners bring the same doubts to due diligence, and a “trusted by millions” banner answers none of them.

What works is evidence: figures that can be checked, registers that can be searched and protections described as they are. This is a general overview, not legal advice.

Why trust starts low

The loss figure travels with every advert

When the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) agreed restrictions on selling CFDs to retail investors in 2018, it cited national regulators’ analyses showing that 74% to 89% of retail investor accounts typically lose money, with average losses per investor of €1,600 to €29,000[2]. The measures capped leverage, from 30:1 on major currency pairs to 2:1 on cryptocurrencies, and required a firm-specific risk warning[2]. National regulators later made them permanent[1].

The warning gives the percentage of the provider’s retail CFD accounts that lost money over the previous 12 months, recalculated every quarter, with all charges, fees and commissions included[2]. A new provider, or one with no open retail CFD positions in the last calculation period, uses a standard warning citing the 74% to 89% range instead[2].

Trading Business Review’s comparison of nine UK and EU firms found published figures from 60% to 77%[1]. Its caveats matter: the figure counts accounts, not money, and “a lower figure is not, on its own, evidence of a better broker”[1].

Enforcement is a matter of public record

Regulators publish their sanctions, and anyone can add them up. Cyprus Business Review, a Unita Media title, read every entry on the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission’s (CySEC) register of administrative sanctions and counted €12,853,260 in fines against Cyprus-licensed investment firms since 2016, across 113 decisions against 85 companies[3]. Because the register did not appear to have been refreshed after September 2024, it treats the total as a floor[3].

Two of its conclusions travel well. A fine “is not, on its own, a verdict on whether a company is still worth trusting today”[3]. And “a rename is cheap. A clean sanctions record is not something a rename can buy back”[3]. A past sanction stays findable, so explain what changed rather than hope nobody looks.

Prop firms: a case that collapsed, questions that did not

In September 2023 the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced fraud charges against the operators of My Forex Funds, a proprietary trading firm, and a court froze their assets[4]. The CFTC said more than 135,000 customers had signed up since November 2021, paying at least $310 million in fees. It alleged that the firm itself, rather than third-party liquidity providers, was the counterparty to substantially all customer trades, and that software caused orders to be executed at worse prices than customers saw[4].

The case then turned against the regulator. In May 2025 the CFTC’s acting chairman acknowledged that, as a court report described, the agency had “engaged in willful and bad faith conduct by making multiple false statements to the Court”[5]. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, and none of the allegations was ever proven[6].

Trading Business Review argues that the questions outlived the case: who is the counterparty, what is simulated and what is live, how prices and fills are generated, what the real pass and payout rates are, and on what grounds an account can be closed[6]. Every evaluation-model prop firm should expect to answer them.

What traders and partners check

The licence, on the regulator’s own register

A licence number on a website proves little by itself. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) warns that clone firms “often use the name and address of a genuine firm, or they may copy the firm reference number (FRN)”, and may copy an authorised firm’s website with small changes, such as the phone number[7]. It tells consumers to check that the firm has permission for the service, and that the contact details on its Firm Checker match the ones they were given[7].

Trading Business Review’s guide sets out six checks, all on regulators’ own registers: find the legal entity rather than the brand, search the register directly, match the website and contact details, confirm the permissions, check the warning lists and confirm the status is current[8]. CySEC’s register, it notes, lists each firm’s approved website domains[8].

Which company they actually signed with

Trading Business Review found that all six retail brokers in its directory run at least one company licensed outside the UK, the EU and Australia, and that for four of them the general international website is run by the offshore company[9]. “Offshore does not mean unregulated,” it notes: it means a different set of rules[9]. That changes what a client gets:

• Leverage. EU retail clients are capped at 30:1 on major currency pairs[2]; one offshore company advertised up to 5000:1 on forex[9].
• Incentives. Trading bonuses banned for EU and UK retail CFD clients can be offered offshore[9].
• The loss figure. Offshore companies do not have to publish one. Of four offshore websites read, two did; one brand’s Bahamas company reported 80%, against 73.6% for its UK company[9].
• Protections. Some are offered by contract instead of law, and “a protection offered by contract can be changed by contract”[9].

Compensation, and its limits

CySEC’s Investor Compensation Fund covers non-professional clients of member firms where a member “has not been able to repay the funds owed to you or return financial instruments to you”[10]. The maximum per claim is €20,000, defined as the lower of 90% of the client’s covered claims and €20,000, paid within three months of the decision reaching the client[10]. It pays when a firm cannot return client money, not when trades lose it[10]. A client of a group’s offshore company falls outside the UK and Cyprus schemes altogether[9].

What firms can do

The legal minimum no longer sets anyone apart. In Cyprus Business Review’s investigation into how forex chief executives are rebuilding trust, carried out with research and data from Financial Markets Media, which supported it, segregated funds, the leverage cap, negative balance protection and compensation fund membership are described as “the baseline every CySEC-licensed competitor already has to clear”[11]. Executives it cites argue that execution quality should be something traders can observe and test rather than take on faith, and that transparency drives growth rather than being a compliance cost[11]. Its summary: “compliance earns the trust. Communications is what determines whether anyone outside the firm actually finds out about it”[11].

The steps below are our advice, built on that evidence.

Publish the loss figure where decisions are made, and explain it

The figure is calculated the same way whichever provider publishes it[1], which makes it evidence rather than a claim. Put it beside the account-opening button as well as in the footer, with a plain explanation of the period, the costs included and the fact that it counts accounts rather than money[1][2]. A group with several regulated companies has a separate figure for each[1], so show each one on the right site.

A hypothetical example of the explanation: “72% of retail CFD accounts with [Company] Ltd lost money in the 12 months to 30 September. The figure includes all fees and is recalculated every quarter. It counts accounts, not the size of losses.”

Make the licensed entity impossible to miss

Name the legal entity, its regulator and its licence number on every page, and link to the live register entry rather than a screenshot. Tell clients which company they will contract with before they open an account, and why. Our guide to proving trust online and what regulators and search engines now expect covers keeping those details consistent wherever they appear.

Describe compensation as it is

State which scheme applies, the limit, the 90% rule where it applies, and that it does not cover trading losses[10]. If some clients are served by a company outside any scheme, say so on that company’s site[9]. Overstated cover is a promise the first failure will test.

Keep disclosures consistent across brands and entities

Clients compare sites. If your EU company publishes a loss figure and your offshore company does not, the gap becomes the story. Publishing one anyway, as two of the four offshore sites Trading Business Review read did[9], costs little and answers the question before it is asked.

Invite independent verification that tests what matters

Self-description is weak evidence. Independent checks carry weight when they test what clients fear: whether payouts arrive, how orders are filled and who is on the other side of the trade. For prop firms, the questions raised by the My Forex Funds case, on counterparty, simulation, fills, pass rates and payout rates, make a ready-made scope[6].

Publish the evidence, and announce it honestly

An audit only rebuilds trust if people can read it: publish the date, scope and result, including what fell short. When you announce it, label any paid distribution and link to the full report; our guide on how to write a press release that journalists and AI assistants pick up covers the mechanics.

Handle complaints and incidents in the open

Publish how complaints are handled, how long a response takes and where a client can escalate. When something breaks, say what happened, what affected clients will get and when you will update them. If accusations are already circulating, see how to respond when traders call your brokerage a scam online.

Marketing within the rules

ESMA’s measures bar CFD providers from giving retail clients any payment or benefit linked to the marketing, distribution or sale of a CFD, other than realised profits, with information and research tools the only non-monetary exception[2]. Its reasoning was that bonuses “can act as a distraction from the high-risk nature of the product”[2]. Any marketing a retail investor can see must carry the risk warning[2].

The people who promote you are covered too. ESMA’s factsheet for finfluencers tells anyone paid or otherwise benefiting to “say it loud and clear. Not in tiny text. Not just hashtags”, using words such as “Ad”, “Paid partnership” or “Sponsored”[12]. It warns that CFDs and forex can mean losing 100% of the capital invested, tells promoters to highlight the risks and not just the rewards, and to check that a firm is authorised before posting[12]. A “This is not investment advice” disclaimer will not protect them where what they say counts as advice or a recommendation[12].

Brief affiliates and influencers in writing, review what they publish and remove content that promises returns. Keep your own claims modest and checkable: “authorised by” with a register link beats “the most trusted broker”. When rules change, explain plainly what changes for clients; see how to turn a regulatory change into a reason clients trust you. For video, build the risk wording and a claims check into the script itself, as in our guide on how to write a video script people watch to the end.

A checklist for rebuilding trust

1. Is your loss figure beside the sign-up button, explained in plain words and current for this quarter?
2. Does every site name the legal entity, regulator and licence number, linked to the live register entry?
3. Does the register list the domains you actually use, and do your contact details match it?
4. Can a client see which company they will contract with, and why, before onboarding?
5. Does your compensation wording give the scheme, the limit and the fact that trading losses are not covered?
6. Do your offshore companies’ sites disclose as clearly as your UK and EU ones, including a loss figure?
7. Has an independent party tested payouts and execution, and is the report public?
8. Are your complaints route, response times and incident updates published?
9. Are bonuses absent for EU retail clients, and does every promotion carry the risk warning?
10. Are affiliates and finfluencers briefed, labelled as paid and checked for unsupported claims?