Retail participation in financial markets has increased steadily over the past decade, with individual investors now accounting for a meaningful share of daily equity volumes and capital inflows in the US. Online brokerages, zero-commission trading, and mobile platforms have made direct market access routine. The more significant shift, however, lies in decision-making authority. A growing number of investors are selecting securities and allocating capital without advisers, prompting brokers to redesign platforms, rethink product architecture, adjust revenue models, and strengthen risk oversight around self-directed participation. What Is a Self-Directed Investor — and How Is That Different From an Active Investor? A self-directed investor is defined by autonomy. They make independent investment decisions: choose assets, allocate capital, and execute trades without relying on a financial adviser. An active investor, by contrast, is defined by strategy. They buy and sell frequently to outperform a benchmark, but not necessarily on their own.These features are not mutually exclusive: investors may act actively within adviser-managed accounts, while self-directed investors can employ passive buy-and-hold strategies.Autonomy determines who decides. Activity reflects the frequency and intensity of investing. This distinction matters as brokers reshape platforms around ownership, not just turnover.How Fast Is Self-Directed Investing Growing — and Where Is It Concentrated? Investor autonomy has expanded materially over the past decade. According to Broadridge, in the US, the percentage of investors who have self-directed accounts rose to 33% in 2025, up from 19% in 2018. The share of assets held in self-directed brokerages rose from 14% to 24% over the same period. The shift is also visible in retirement capital.Charles Schwab’s latest SDBA Indicators Report confirms that average balances in self-directed brokerage accounts within retirement plans reached $383,087 in the third quarter of 2025, up 10.3% year-over-year.While Vanguard reports that only around 1% of eligible plan participants use self-directed brokerage features, those who do tend to build more concentrated portfolios: 24% hold extreme allocations — either fully in equities or entirely outside them — a pattern rarely seen in professionally managed accounts. Adviser usage has edged lower in parallel. According to the FTSE Russell Retail Investor Survey 2024, 59% of retail investors reported working with financial advisers, down from 64% two years earlier. The trend does not imply the disappearance of advice, but it does signal a gradual redistribution of decision-making power toward the end investor. Why Does Decision Ownership Force Brokers to Redesign Their Platforms? The rise of self-directed investors does not simply increase trading volume. It changes where responsibility sits. When investors delegate decisions, the platform’s role is primarily administrative: execution, custody, and reporting. When investors insist on making decisions themselves, the platform becomes their primary decision infrastructure. Retail investors now account for roughly 20–25% of daily US equity trading volume, according to JPMorgan, with participation rising to 35% during peak activity periods. In 2025 alone, net retail inflows into US equities rose by more than 50% year over year, surpassing even the 2021 meme-era peak.That shift affects design at multiple levels. Interfaces must deliver real-time data, frictionless execution, and full portfolio transparency. Order tickets need to be simplified without being simplistic. As a result, platforms tend to prioritize real-time data, simplified order flows, and full portfolio transparency.Autonomy also alters product architecture. Platforms built around long-term allocation models are being reshaped to support tactical positioning - whether that means rotating ETFs, adjusting sector exposure, or expressing short-term views through derivatives. Even investors who ultimately hold passive instruments expect to be able to rebalance instantly and monitor exposures continuously.In other words, the broker is no longer just an intermediary between client and market. It is the operating environment in which the investor thinks, analyses, and acts. As decision-making shifts to the end user, platform design shifts from static account management to dynamic, real-time control. When Does Autonomy Turn Into Activity — and Which Products Capture It? Self-direction does not automatically translate into high trading frequency. But it lowers friction. And lower friction tends to increase engagement — especially when investors have direct access to tools, real-time data, and leverage. According to Cboe Global Markets Report for 2025, zero-days-to-expiration (0DTE) options now account for roughly 59% of S&P 500 options volume, with daily activity in SPX contracts averaging in the millions. These instruments offer precise, short-term exposure — aligning with investors who want to express views quickly and adjust positions intraday. The revenue implications are significant. Options generate substantially more payment-for-order-flow revenue than equities for the same notional exposure — estimates suggest roughly 20 times more. As a result, platforms serving active self-directed investors see revenue increasingly concentrated in derivatives rather than traditional stock trades. Prediction markets have emerged as another expression of this shift. Event contracts allow investors to take directional views in simplified formats. Their growth reflects demand for instruments that translate opinions into positions with minimal structural complexity. However, not all self-directed investors are highly active. Activity tends to rise when autonomy meets high conviction and easy execution. Product design follows, resulting in platforms optimised for speed and real-time risk exposure. Why Is AI Becoming the Operating System for Self-Directed Investors? If autonomy shifts decision-making to the end investor, AI reduces the cognitive burden that comes with it. Self-directed investors do not necessarily want advice delegated, they want analysis accelerated. That distinction is driving the integration of AI directly into the trading interface. Adoption is already widespread. Data from eToro’s Retail Investor Beat (Q3 2025) show that roughly 58% of US retail investors reported using AI tools in portfolio construction, with significantly higher uptake among Millennials and Gen Z.These tools range from portfolio digests explaining performance drivers to natural-language order entry and strategy builders that translate market views into trade structures. For self-directed investors, AI shortens the distance between idea and execution. Instead of navigating multiple screens or interpreting dense analytics, investors can query exposures, simulate outcomes, or initiate trades conversationally. The platform becomes not just a venue for execution but an analytical companion embedded in real time. The shift has governance implications. Regulators are increasingly focused on explainability, supervision, and “kill-switch” mechanisms as AI systems move closer to autonomous decision support. As AI becomes more central to the interface, brokers are under growing pressure to balance acceleration with accountability — ensuring that automation enhances autonomy without obscuring risk. AI, in this context, is less about replacing advisers and more about scaling independent decision-making. It enables self-direction at greater speed and complexity — reinforcing the structural move toward investor-controlled portfolios. How Does Greater Autonomy Reshape Broker Monetization? As decision-making moves to investors, engagement and revenue concentration tend to increase. Industry surveys and broker initiatives suggest that self-directed investors are typically more engaged with trading tools and platform features, with many maintaining separate accounts to pursue tactical or higher-risk strategies. When autonomy and activity combine, monetisation shifts toward higher-margin products. Derivatives are central to that shift. Options, particularly short-dated contracts, generate materially higher payment-for-order-flow revenue per dollar traded than equities, according to SEC disclosures and academic research.The structural linkage can be summarised as follows:From Investor Autonomy to Broker Revenue: A Structural LinkHow shifts in retail decision-making reshape platform design, product mix, and monetization models.For brokers with large active self-directed bases, this creates a revenue model increasingly tied to engagement intensity rather than asset custody alone. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny of payment-for-order-flow (including the EU’s planned PFOF phase-out and the SEC’s proposed order competition rule in the US) is pushing platforms to diversify. Subscription tiers have gained momentum. In its Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 earnings report, Robinhood disclosed that Gold subscribers grew 58% year-over-year, underscoring rising demand for bundled premium tools and margin benefits. Premium tiers typically bundle real-time market data, advanced charting tools, lower margin rates, and increasingly, AI-driven analytics.As a result, brokers are building hybrid models: transactional revenue from activity, recurring revenue from subscriptions, and balance-sheet income from financing. The monetisation shift mirrors the behavioral shift. As investors assume greater control, brokers monetise not only trades but the infrastructure that enables autonomous decision-making. Are Brokers Empowering Investor Autonomy — or Containing Its Risks? As autonomy expands, so does supervisory complexity. When investors delegate decisions, suitability controls are embedded in advisory processes. When they act independently, risk management shifts to the platform layer.That shift is reflected in recent regulatory initiatives. In the US, FINRA’s proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2025-017 would amend Rule 4210 by replacing the long-standing day trading margin provisions with intraday margin standards — a move toward real-time exposure monitoring rather than static capital thresholds. The proposal signals a broader shift from fixed eligibility gates to continuous risk oversight. Regulatory attention has also intensified around technology-enabled engagement. Platforms are responding by embedding dynamic safeguards. Risk nudges, exposure alerts, suitability refresh prompts, and behavioural analytics are increasingly integrated directly into order flows. AI systems, while designed to accelerate decision-making, are also being paired with audit trails and supervisory controls to ensure explainability and override capability. The result is a structural tension. Brokers face the challenge of enabling autonomy by offering speed, precision, and analytical tools, and simultaneously building infrastructure to contain excessive risk-taking. The more investors insist on controlling their portfolios, the more platforms must operate as real-time risk engines. The transformation underway is mostly about a redistribution of decision authority. As control moves to the individual investor, brokers are evolving from execution venues into integrated operating environments that combine trading, analytics, and risk management. The challenge is no longer just enabling access, but balancing autonomy with oversight in a market where investors increasingly expect to direct their own participation. This article was written by Tanya Chepkova at www.financemagnates.com.

India's central bank will not soften its new lending rules for retail brokers and prop traders, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Sanjay Malhotra confirmed today (Monday), dismissing industry calls to revisit the restrictions before they kick in on April 1."There is no change that we are contemplating," Malhotra said at a press conference following the RBI's board meeting.The rules, issued earlier this month after a public consultation process that began in October 2025, require banks to back all credit to capital market intermediaries with 100% eligible collateral, a significant tightening from a system where partial or promoter-backed guarantees were common. Banks are also now barred entirely from financing brokers' proprietary trading, closing a structure that had effectively let prop desks borrow at twice the value of their deposits through leveraged bank guarantees.India's retail traders have lost an estimated $34 billion over four years, with 91% of individual futures and options traders recording losses in the fiscal year ending March 2025 - data that has placed India's regulatory toolkit under the global spotlight. A detailed breakdown of how those losses may be shaping enforcement approaches in Australia, Europe, and beyond is available through the new FMIntel Datalab, where registration is free.Brokerage Stocks Already Felt the BlowThe announcement hit Indian brokerage stocks hard when the rules first landed. BSE, the country's major exchange operator, fell as much as 9.9%, while Angel One and Groww dropped 9.5% and 4.8%, respectively. Motilal Oswal Financial Services shed 3.3%.Jefferies estimated that proprietary trading accounts for roughly half of all equity options premium turnover - meaning the ban on bank financing for such activity could squeeze a substantial chunk of market liquidity. The bank pegged BSE as the most exposed, forecasting a potential 10% hit to the exchange's earnings. Angel One, according to JM Financial analysts, would need to "immediately relook" its funding for its margin trading facility, while Groww may need to tap external markets for fresh capital.Brokerage firms pushed back by writing to the market regulator to seek a review. Malhotra's statement Monday offers little encouragement for that effort.India's Derivatives Market Faces Mounting PressureThe RBI's move is the latest in a series of measures aimed at cooling India's derivatives market, where retail investor losses have drawn growing scrutiny from regulators. Combined with a recently hiked transaction tax on equity futures and options, analysts expect the cumulative effect to dampen trading volumes further.When India raised its securities transaction tax earlier this year, it prompted questions about whether traders might migrate to unregulated CFD platforms to sidestep the levies, a concern FinanceMagnates.com covered in depth following the STT hike announcement.The broader regulatory tightening has already reshuffled the foreign broker landscape. FBS suspended all marketing activities globally months after exiting the Indian market entirely. Exness halted new client onboarding from India despite the country representing nearly 30% of its global traffic. Meanwhile, Indian authorities raided offices of Zara FX and froze bank accounts as part of an expanded enforcement push against unauthorized forex and derivatives operations.Inflation Mandate Heads Into a Scheduled ReviewMalhotra also addressed India's inflation-targeting framework on Monday, confirming the RBI has sent its recommendations to the government ahead of a formal review due by the end of March. He declined to reveal the contents of those recommendations.India currently requires the central bank to hold retail inflation at 4%, within a tolerance band of 2% to 6%. The country recently updated its inflation measurement methodology, reducing the weight assigned to food prices in the consumer basket. Malhotra said those technical changes would not, on their own, shift the RBI's thinking on what the appropriate inflation target should be. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

For asset managers, selling funds through distribution platforms in Singapore is a highly competitive business. In most cases this leads to a focus on established products that are easy to distribute - although recent developments hint at the potential for innovation.Regional Disparities in Product DemandCrisil Coalition Greenwich’s 2025 Asian Intermediary Distributors Study highlights some interesting disparities between Singapore-based distributors and their regional counterparts when it comes to product popularity.For example, the distributors surveyed for the Asia-wide study exhibited significantly reduced enthusiasm for US equities, with more than a third of respondents projecting a significant decrease in flows. Yet Killian Lonergan, head of distribution intelligence at BBH, says demand for growth exposure among investors in Singapore remains strong, particularly for global and US equity strategies.“What sells best are recognisable, core exposures such as global large-cap, US equity and dividend-focused strategies,” he adds.Similarly, while the Asian distributors surveyed by Crisil Coalition Greenwich projected a third consecutive year of significant net outflows from emerging markets debt, one of the most popular product categories for FSMOne Singapore (the business-to-consumer division of iFAST) is funds offering targeted sector or geographic exposure to emerging markets.Innovation Takes a Back SeatOne area where there is greater consensus is the extent to which innovation is a factor in the launch of a fund. Respondents to the Asian Intermediary Distributors Study ranked product innovation below performance, investment capability, fund size, capability in the relevant market and investment process and only just ahead of information transparency in terms of importance.Lonergan explains that the most popular products in Singapore are those that align with how distributors operate and how advisers construct portfolios. Outcome-oriented funds that are operationally simple, easy to position and compatible with suitability frameworks consistently outperform more complex or niche strategies in commercial terms.“In Singapore, funds don’t succeed because they are innovative - they succeed because they are easy to distribute,” he says. “Income-oriented funds continue to attract the most consistent inflows across private banks and retail platforms. Global and Asian credit, investment grade bond funds and multi-asset income strategies remain staples and this demand is structural rather than cyclical.”Income and Stability Drive FlowsAccording to Lonergan, investors in Singapore value income visibility and capital stability, while distributors favour products that can be positioned around outcomes rather than market timing. Balanced and target risk multi-asset funds play an outsized role in Singapore distribution, simplifying portfolio construction, fitting neatly into suitability frameworks and scaling easily across client segments.“Liquidity, transparency and suitability constraints continue to limit how far demand can move into more complex structures,” suggests Lonergan. “Thematic strategies such as technology, healthcare or sustainability typically generate strong initial interest but are often used tactically rather than as long-term holdings.”Similarly, ESG-labelled funds are increasingly expected by distributors - particularly in retail channels - but ESG alone is rarely enough to drive sustained inflows.Lonergan reckons share class structure is one of the most underappreciated factors in Singapore, noting that funds offering Singapore dollar-hedged share classes and regular income distributions tend to be far more commercially successful than otherwise identical strategies offered only in US dollar accumulation formats.Timothy Liew, head of investments at OCBC, agrees that there is continued strong demand for income-focused products, driven in part by more cautious investor sentiment as a consequence of concerns around geopolitical and policy risks.“Furthermore, bond yields continue to stay relatively elevated despite the Fed cutting rates, presenting attractive opportunities for income,” he says. “Accordingly, we have seen strong inflows into global fixed income and dividend-focused equity funds. Predictable income from bonds helps mitigate volatility in the broader portfolio, while dividend stocks present a less volatile avenue to gain exposure to constructive growth.”ETFs and Multi-Asset MomentumLuke Lim, managing director at Phillip Securities, refers to the popularity of multi-asset portfolios and observes that traditional mutual funds remain in demand, especially when human advice shapes asset allocation.He also refers to continued interest in ETFs. The latest data from SGX indicates that Singapore-focused ETFs saw record multi-asset inflows in 2025, with equity ETFs recording ten consecutive months of net inflows and investor interest in REIT ETFs picking up significantly in the second half of 2025.The latter segment attracted net inflows of S$557 million (approximately $433.6 million), lifting total assets under management to a record high of S$1.65 billion ($1.285 billion) by the end of the year.Amid heightened market volatility, money market funds have retained strong demand due to a combination of high liquidity and stable returns over the last few years, with a number of new funds hitting the market in 2024 and last year.Tokenisation and New Structures EmergingHowever, the relative unimportance of product innovation among fund distributors does not mean that new lines are not emerging.Elaine Tan, head of asset owners & asset managers client lines for Asia Pacific, securities services, BNP Paribas, notes that tokenisation was one of the topics strongly linked to money market funds in Singapore in 2025.“Fund managers have introduced digital units of money market funds on private permissioned blockchains such as tokenised share classes and on-chain funds,” she explains.Tokenization creates competition between markets that were never able to compete before.A market in Singapore will compete with a market in New York, because settlement windows and local infrastructure no longer matter. pic.twitter.com/s6uDIyMlmj— Chris Barrett ⬡ cbone ?️ (@ChrisBarrett) December 19, 2025In 2026, equity-focused products will be added to the equity market development programme launched by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in February 2025, expanding the retail investment horizon beyond large-cap stocks.“In addition, the forthcoming long-term investment fund scheme is expected to further diversify retail asset allocation, potentially shifting a portion of retail capital from ultra short-term vehicles such as money market funds to long-term private asset exposure,” adds Tan.Traditional actively managed funds remain the most popular products in Singapore but there is growing momentum around expanding access to private market funds, supported by the proposed long-term investment fund structure, according to Justin Christopher, head of Asia at Calastone.“Looking ahead, increased tokenisation of fund products could further influence product popularity,” he concludes. “While adoption will naturally align with the pace of digital distribution, the continued growth of digital investment channels suggests an increasingly supportive environment for new product structures over time.” This article was written by Paul Golden at www.financemagnates.com.

Across financial markets, the bid-offer spread has always served a fundamental purpose. Whether prices are formed through dealer negotiation, brokered interaction, or electronic matching, the spread was the price of risk. It compensated a liquidity provider for holding inventory, absorbing uncertainty, and managing the time, capital, and information asymmetry involved in finding the other side of a trade.The mechanics differed by market, but the principle was consistent. When risk increased, spreads widened. When liquidity deteriorated, prices adjusted. The spread acted as a shock absorber, translating market stress into visible cost.That relationship has weakened. Not just in electronic markets, but across asset classes and execution styles.Over time, competitive pressure has compressed spreads to levels increasingly disconnected from underlying risk. What began as efficiency has, in many cases, become distortion. The spread still exists, but it no longer consistently performs the function it was designed for.From Risk Price to Competitive SignalHistorically, spreads were set with reference to absolute risk. Dealers widened prices when available liquidity thinned, hedging depth deteriorated, volatility increased, or balance sheet costs rose. The spread adjusted to reflect the cost of carrying exposure through uncertainty.In many modern market environments, that logic has shifted.Where pricing is continuously visible, easily comparable, and frequently used as a point of differentiation, the spread increasingly functions as a competitive signal rather than a risk premium. The dominant question is no longer what this risk costs to hold, but how this price looks relative to others offering the same product.As long as pricing remains broadly in line with the surrounding market, it is considered acceptable. The spread becomes something to be defended, not something to be discovered.This distinction matters because relative pricing behaves very differently under stress. When spreads are anchored to peer comparison rather than underlying conditions, they lose their ability to expand naturally as volatility rises. The market still experiences the same risk, but that risk is prevented from expressing itself through price.Instead of being absorbed by the spread, it is carried elsewhere in the system.In recent work analysing pricing behaviour across different market environments, and in discussions I have had with multiple firms, a recurring theme has emerged. Pricing decisions are often optimised around relative positioning, while the underlying mechanics of liquidity availability, inventory accumulation, hedging reliability, and balance sheet exposure are treated as secondary considerations. The result is pricing that appears competitive in isolation but becomes brittle when conditions change.Market Structure Does Not Change the OutcomeIt is tempting to frame this dynamic as a by-product of electronic trading, but that misses the point. I have seen the same pattern emerge wherever markets are highly competitive and pricing is easy to compare.As information asymmetry declines and execution becomes more standardised, spreads converge on the tightest level that avoids immediate arbitrage. Over time, that level drifts away from the true cost of holding risk.The execution method changes. The incentive structure does not.When competition is centred on headline pricing rather than risk absorption, the spread stops acting as a stabilising mechanism and starts acting as a constraint.Recent Volatility Has Made the Issue Harder to IgnoreThe increased volatility seen in precious metals over recent weeks has brought this issue back into focus. In multiple recent discussions I have had with market participants, the same questions have surfaced repeatedly. Why did pricing feel stable until it suddenly was not? Why did relatively small moves produce outsized inventory swings? And why did risk controls engage faster than expected?Gold and silver have experienced sharp intraday moves, sudden repricing, and rapid changes in liquidity conditions. Volatility regimes have shifted quickly, often faster than pricing frameworks have adjusted. In several sessions, price action has looked more like stress behaviour than routine market fluctuation.In calmer periods, compressed spreads in metals appear benign. Execution looks efficient. Costs look low. But during recent volatile sessions, the mismatch between price and risk has been harder to overlook.Spreads that remain structurally tight during fast markets do not dampen volatility. They amplify its impact on liquidity providers. Inventory accumulates more quickly. Hedging costs rise abruptly. Small misalignments translate into disproportionately large P&L swings.In environments where pricing is slow to adjust, volatility is not absorbed by the spread. It is absorbed by the balance sheet.Some Clients Really Do Trade the SpreadIt is also true that some clients do not treat spreads as a marketing metric. They trade them.There is a cohort running scalping and price-dislocation strategies, seeking to extract small, repeatable price increments or exploit brief mid-price misalignments. In effect, they are monetising micro-dislocations, latency, and stale quoting. That behaviour is part of what keeps competitive pressure on displayed pricing even when underlying conditions would justify wider markets.The irony is that this does not make tight spreads more client-friendly. It makes them more structurally important to defend. If the market is forced to hold tight pricing while liquidity thins and hedging depth deteriorates, risk does not vanish. It migrates into inventory swings, slippage, asymmetric execution, and abrupt changes in trading conditions.The clients who rely on micro-edges will continue to push for the thinnest possible buffer. The long-run outcome is often a less stable trading environment for everyone else.Where the Risk Actually GoesWhen spreads no longer price risk, that risk is not eliminated. It is displaced.It moves into internal buffers, inventory limits, execution controls, and operational responses that are far less visible to end users. This can surface as increased slippage, reduced liquidity availability during fast markets, delayed execution, or sudden changes to trading conditions.When reviewing these episodes across different firms and market conditions over time, what has struck me most is how consistent the pattern is. The firms that experience the most strain are rarely those with the widest spreads in calm markets. They are more often those where pricing models have evolved incrementally without being retested against how liquidity, volatility, and hedging interact under stress.From the outside, this distinction is rarely obvious until something breaks, and by that point the root cause is often obscured by the symptoms.The Recurring Appeal of Discipline, and Why It FailsPeriods of stress tend to trigger the same conclusion: spreads that remain structurally tight during volatile conditions do not create better outcomes; they relocate risk into less visible parts of the system. A more volatility-aware approach to pricing would, in principle, benefit everyone over the long run. It reduces the frequency of destabilising inventory swings, supports more consistent execution, and makes intermediaries more resilient when markets gap and reprice.In off-record conversations over recent weeks, I have heard variants of the same idea raised more than once. If everyone widened to a sensible baseline during stressed conditions, the market would likely be more stable, execution would be more consistent, and intermediaries would be less prone to sudden defensive measures. The problem is not the intuition; it is the structure.The market cannot rely on collective discipline to achieve this. Pricing is a competitive signal, and competitive signals get undercut. Even if many participants privately recognise that risk is being underpriced in stressed markets, the incentive to be the tightest quote for acquisition is persistent. It only takes one participant to reset expectations for everyone else.This is not a coordination problem. It is a structural incentive problem.What Clients Actually Care AboutMany end users are obsessed with the spread. It is one of the first numbers they look at and one of the easiest to compare. In practice, it is largely irrelevant to the outcome they actually experience.What matters is the price they execute at on entry and the price they execute at on exit.At the moment of a trade, a seller only interacts with the bid. A buyer only interacts with the offer. The spread is simply the distance between two displayed numbers, but the trader never transacts at the mid and never transacts at the spread. They transact at a single executable price.This is why headline spreads can be such a distraction. They are easy to market and easy to compare, but they tell you very little about realised cost. Realised cost is shaped by slippage, rejects, latency, and how pricing behaves when markets move quickly. A narrow spread that collapses under stress is not a lower-cost environment. It is simply a different way of charging for risk, one that appears through execution quality rather than through a visibly wider quote.Once you view the problem through executable prices and realised outcomes, the next step becomes clear. You measure what traders actually experience on entry and exit, identify where behaviour breaks under stress, and govern pricing to behave consistently across regimes.The Action That Needs FixingThe fix is not a slogan about wider spreads, and it is not a race to the tightest quote. The action is to reconnect pricing to the risk it is meant to absorb, using measurable, testable controls.That means separating the marketing view of price from the execution and risk reality of price. It means measuring realised trading outcomes by regime, not just displayed spreads in calm conditions.Firms that handle volatility best tend to do a few things consistently:● They monitor realised execution outcomes by instrument and regime, including slippage distribution, reject rates, and behaviour during fast markets. ● They treat spread behaviour as a governed policy, with explicit triggers tied to liquidity conditions and hedging depth, not just headline volatility. ● They stress-test pricing rules against recent stress sessions, particularly in products like gold and silver, where conditions can reprice rapidly. ● They analyse the interaction between flow composition, quote stability, and hedging performance instead of looking at each in isolation.None of this requires a reinvention of market making. It requires a structured diagnostic, cross-functional alignment, and the discipline to define explicitly how pricing should behave when markets move.I have seen firms materially improve resilience by doing this work properly, because it turns a debate about spreads into a concrete engineering and governance problem with observable outputs.What Volatility Is Telling UsVolatility does not create these problems. It reveals them.Recent moves in gold and silver have acted as a reminder that pricing is not just a competitive tool. It is a risk management mechanism. When that mechanism stops functioning properly, stress shows up elsewhere.The real challenge is not whether spreads should be wide or tight, but whether they remain connected to the risks they are meant to represent.In the end, the spread is not just a number. It is a mechanism. When it stops doing its job, volatility eventually reminds everyone why it existed in the first place. This article was written by Jamie Rose at www.financemagnates.com.

Equals Money hires ex-Binance, Gemini executiveExecutive reshuffles remained active this week as brokers and fintech firms tapped new leaders across different business lines. Equals Money, a UK-based payments and financial services provider, appointed Marcus Bacchi-Howard as its Head of Digital Assets. His appointment brings deep expertise in digital asset sales and trading to the company. Before that, he was Head of Sales and Managing Director at One Trading for a year. His earlier roles also include institutional sales positions at Gemini and Binance.Learn more about Equals Money's appointment of Marcus Bacchi-Howard as Head of Digital Assets.Match-trader platform head exitsAnd in the trading technology space, Alexis Droussiotis exited his role as Head of Match-Trader Platform at Match-Trade Technologies. Based in Limassol, Cyprus, he joined the firm in 2023 and played a key role in driving business development and operational initiatives to expand the platform’s reach and adoption.Before joining Match-Trade Technologies, Droussiotis spent over six years at PrimeXM in Cyprus, where he held senior roles including Chief Information Officer and Director for Operations and Business Support. Display more about Alexis Droussiotis' exit from Match-Trader.NinjaTrader taps ex-IG exec General Manager, InternationalMeanwhile, NinjaTrader Group appointed Christopher Tripp as General Manager, International, marking a key step in the futures trading platform’s expansion across Europe.Owned by Kraken, NinjaTrader recently entered the European market and intends to leverage Tripp’s leadership to drive its international strategy. His responsibilities will include expanding access to the platform, enhancing pricing initiatives, and advancing trader education for users beyond the U.S.Show more about NinjaTrader's appointment of Christopher Tripp as General Manager, International.Freetrade CEO departs post-IG acquisitionViktor Nebehaj will step down as CEO of Freetrade this summer after nearly a decade with the company. Nebehaj, who co-founded the commission-free investment platform, said it felt like the right time to take a break after years of building the business.His departure follows IG Group’s £160 million acquisition of Freetrade last year, a deal financed through IG’s existing capital. Despite the takeover, Freetrade continues to operate as a standalone brand. Over his tenure, Nebehaj held several key roles, including Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, and Head of Growth.Discover more about Freetrade CEO departure post-IG acquisition.Currency.com hires ex-Symbridge CEO Lastly, Currency.com named Alexander Kravets as its U.S. Chief Executive. Kravets brings more than 25 years of experience in building and managing regulated trading businesses, including leadership roles at CEX.IO and Symbridge.The appointment comes as Currency.com continues to expand its regulatory footprint across the United States. In October 2025, the platform secured its 32nd money transmitter license, marking steady progress toward nationwide coverage.Highlight more about Currency.com's hiring of Alexander Kravets as its US CEO. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

High web traffic, low CFD volumesA new dataset from the fmintelligence portal challenges the long-held belief that more website traffic translates into higher trading activity for brokers. Analysis of 47 retail forex and CFD firms shows that the correlation between organic web traffic and actual trading volumes is just 0.09, essentially insignificant. The figures, which compare January 2026 traffic data with recent monthly CFD volume averages, suggest that online visibility and trading activity measure very different aspects of a broker’s performance.The sector as a whole is seeing strong traffic growth, though unevenly distributed. Total organic traffic rose 36.5% year-over-year to 40.2 million visits in January 2026, up from 29.4 million. However, only 57% of brokers gained visitors, while 36% lost ground.iForex readies £43.3M London IPO after delayMeanwhile, iFOREX set the price of its London Stock Exchange IPO at 195 pence per share, implying a market capitalization of about £43.3 million. Trading in the shares, which will list under the ticker IFRX, is expected to start on February 25. The listing comes after the company postponed an earlier plan to go public in late June 2025 due to additional time needed to complete a routine compliance inspection in the British Virgin Islands, before recently confirming that the process had restarted. The IPO comprises 4,487,179 new ordinary shares, with no existing shareholders selling any stock.Plus500 plunges on £67M exec share saleSignificant insider share sales, even in profitable brokers, can still grab market attention. Plus500 executives sold £67.1 million worth of shares on Tuesday, sparking a sharp selloff that briefly wiped out up to 10% of the broker’s market value before the stock narrowed losses to trade 6% lower at 4,430 pence.CEO David Zruia, CFO Elad Even-Chen and CMO Nir Zats offloaded a combined 1.5 million shares at £44.78 each to Goldman Sachs International, in a block trade arranged by Panmure Liberum that accounted for 2.14% of Plus500’s issued share capital. The broker earlier posted strong metrics with average client deposit jumping 124%.Last year, non-over-the-counter revenue at the broker surpassed $100 million and grew to about 14% of total revenue, up from virtually zero just a few years ago. The rapid growth of this segment highlighted how the contracts for difference (CFD) specialist is steadily building business lines beyond its core CFD offering.​eToro soars despite crypto setbackMore interesting numbers came from the Nasdaq-listed eToro. The group posted record full-year results, alongside an expanded share buyback program and upbeat guidance. It shares soared more than 20% higher to close at $33.07, the highest level in over a month. Net contribution for the year rose 10% to $868 million, GAAP net income increased 12% to $216 million, and the company ended 2025 with $1.3 billion in cash on its balance sheet.Source: eToro Group Ltd. SEC filings (Form 6-K), Q1-Q4 2025CEO Yoni Assia described 2025 as a “defining” or “milestone” year for eToro, highlighting its May Nasdaq IPO, faster product rollouts, and a broader international footprint as supporting factors behind the company’s growth momentum.IG’s latest “Check Your Fees” campaign stirs debateAre “fat cats” quietly snacking on UK investors’ funds with hefty fees? Well, IG’s recently launched campaign, “Check Your Fees,” aims to highlight how much UK investors are overpaying in platform charges. The broker’s latest Fat Cat Index found that more than half (52%) of investors use one of the 12 most expensive investment platforms, paying up to £515 more per year than those on lower-cost alternatives. For active investors using one of the top four costly providers, the extra annual cost rises to £711, or even £922 on the priciest platform. The findings show that active investors pay an average of £54 in annual fees on the cheapest platforms, compared to much higher totals on premium ones.Kraken goes on hiring frenzy in CyprusAway from cats, something interesting is unfolding in Cyprus’ crypto space. Over the past two weeks, crypto exchange Kraken has posted about 50 new roles. The hiring spree follows its 2025 acquisition of CFD broker Greenfield Wealth, a move that gave the exchange a Cyprus Investment Firm (CIF) license and access to the EU’s MiFID framework.Most of the new vacancies are senior or managerial, indicating a focus on building leadership and technical depth rather than entry-level capacity. Roughly 70% of the openings target senior talent, including positions such as Regulatory MiFID Officer, Global Head of Middle Office, and Senior AI/ML Engineer.The Trading Pit launches Seychelles CFD brokerIn the prop space, The Trading Pit has launched a new brokerage, TTP Markets, which is regulated in Seychelles. With this move, the company joins other proprietary trading firms expanding into the CFD brokerage sector.The launch is being carried out gradually, with TTP Markets initially onboarding a small group of selected retail and corporate prop traders from The Trading Pit’s community. The company emphasized that this is not a full-scale retail push but rather a pilot phase to test its regulatory systems and prepare for future global expansion.The5ers enters futures prop marketAt the same time, prop firm The5ers entered the futures proprietary trading space with the introduction of its new futures prop offering, joining a growing list of CFD-focused prop firms expanding into this segment. Other major names, including FundedNext, have recently launched similar initiatives as the market continues to attract established trading brands.The Trading Pit has introduced TTP Markets, our Seychelles-regulated brokerage arm.The rollout will begin with a select group of successful retail and corporate prop traders, followed by a expansion across jurisdictions.Read the full article - https://t.co/e0IUfhUyLY pic.twitter.com/T26BbsywbM— The Trading Pit (@TheTradingPit_) February 17, 2026Many CFD prop firms are turning to futures as a way to access the US market, which remains largely closed to CFD-based operations. Following MetaQuotes’ reported restrictions on CFD prop firms onboarding American traders, demand in the US has shifted toward futures-focused models.Overnight trading stays niche as access growsMeanwhile, for years, 4 p.m. in New York signaled the end of the trading day, when markets quieted and traders reviewed the day’s activity. That routine is changing. According to data shared exclusively with Finance Magnates, between 25% and 40% of Capital.com’s retail clients traded during pre- and post-market hours in the past three months, although only 4% to 5% traded overnight.Robinhood has surpassed $20B in overnight trading volume since launching Robinhood 24 Hour Market last year. ? pic.twitter.com/qK8gNF797c— Vlad Tenev (@vladtenev) June 5, 2024On eToro, which recently introduced 24/5 trading for S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 stocks, about one-third of stock trades in December 2025 happened after normal trading hours.A similar trend is visible at Robinhood. In June 2024, CEO Vlad Tenev said that one year after launching its “24 Hour Market,” the platform had recorded more than US$20 billion in overnight trading volume.CFTC defends prediction marketsGlobal regulators are increasingly at odds over how to treat prediction markets. CFTC Chair Michael Selig stepped up tensions between federal and state regulators over control of prediction markets. He directed the agency to get involved in ongoing court cases and made it clear that the CFTC, not individual states, should have authority over these markets and their event-based contracts.I have some big news to announce… pic.twitter.com/3OBNTaOnIL— Mike Selig (@ChairmanSelig) February 17, 2026In a video posted Tuesday on X, Selig said the agency had filed an amicus brief to support its claim of “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, saying they are part of the broader derivatives market regulated by the CFTC.Netherlands shuts PolymarketIn Amsterdam, things are quiet different. The Dutch Gaming Authority has ordered Adventure One, the operator of prediction platform Polymarket, to stop offering games of chance in the Netherlands because it does not hold a local gambling license. The move comes after similar action in the United States, where Tennessee’s Sports Wagering Council told Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com to halt sports-related contracts, cancel existing ones, and refund customers. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

The Supreme Court today (Friday) invalidated most of President Donald Trump’s broad tariffs, removing a key element of his second-term economic strategy.In a written opinion, the court said Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs was unlawful. The 1970s law allows the president to “regulate” imports to address national emergencies that pose an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.The ruling comes after Trump’s tariff announcements drew sharp reactions from trading partners, particularly in Europe, where officials warned of retaliation, and markets and economic activity had already been affected.Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Emergency TariffsChief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the court was not evaluating economic policy. “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” he wrote. “Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” The Hill reported.Trump is the first president in nearly 50 years to invoke IEEPA for tariffs. Beginning in February, he declared an emergency related to fentanyl and used it to levy duties on Canada, China and Mexico. He later cited a trade deficit emergency to impose reciprocal tariffs on dozens of other trading partners.Lower courts had allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the Supreme Court reviewed the case. The ruling does not affect sector-specific tariffs imposed under other laws, including on steel, aluminum and copper.Did you know? Donald Trump is the FIRST U.S. President in history to have his tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court! No other president has faced this—usually Congress handles tariffs, but Trump used emergency powers under IEEPA. Historic ruling! pic.twitter.com/kaEqpX4ntt— USMC Lady Vet ?? (@Arkypatriot) February 20, 2026Stuart Kousoulou, Quantitative Trader at CMC Markets, said the Supreme Court ruling had been “positive for risk assets, particularly equities and global markets, by reducing a major policy uncertainty.” He added that the decision also clarifies legal boundaries on trade policy, but noted that questions remain over refunds, small business impacts, and potential alternative tariff authorities.Companies May Seek Billions Tariff RefundsThe decision is expected to prompt companies to seek refunds for billions of dollars in tariffs already paid. Before the ruling, firms including Costco, parts of the Toyota Group and Revlon filed lawsuits to preserve potential claims. The Supreme Court case originated from suits brought by Democratic-led states and two groups of small businesses.Trump had described the case as one of the most important in U.S. history and warned that a decision against him could cause economic harm. Despite the ruling, the administration retains options. Congress can impose tariffs, and similar measures could be justified under other laws. This article was written by Tareq Sikder at www.financemagnates.com.

EC Markets has appointed Nicholas McGregor as Sponsorship and Partnerships Manager based in London. In the new role, he will work on the broker’s recent partnership with the English Premier League defending champions Liverpool FC alongside other sponsorship projects."I'll be focusing on our partnership with Liverpool Football Club alongside a wider range of sponsorship initiatives. It's a role that sits right at the intersection of sport, brand, and business, and I couldn't be more excited by the opportunity," McGregor announced on Friday. Sponsorship and Marketing Experience Before joining EC Markets, McGregor worked as Marketing Manager at the United Rugby Championship in London. He also previously served as Sponsorship Manager at Biffa, focusing on communication and sports marketing. His new responsibilities include sponsorship activation and relations.McGregor has a strong expertise in the marketing space. Earlier in 2024, McGregor held the role of Senior Account Manager at PR agency 42Bruton, working with startups and small and medium-sized firms in Greater London.Sports Sponsorship Background from eToroAdditionally, he brings experience from rival eToro, where he worked in London for nearly three years. He served as Global Sponsorship Assistant Manager and later as Europe Sponsorship Manager. His work at the Nasdaq-listed broker covered sponsorships and communications with a focus on sports.Read more: Learning to Trade like a Champion: Insights from EC Markets and Liverpool FCLast year, EC Markets signed a multi-year sponsorship agreement with Liverpool FC, a deal that made the broker the club’s “Official Global Partner.” The collaboration included visibility for EC Markets at Anfield, Liverpool’s home stadium. The broker’s branding appears on pitch-side LED screens and other digital advertising boards around the ground. It ensures the firm's brand is seen by fans in the stadium and by viewers watching matches on TV.Anfield, opened in 1884, is one of the renowned football stadiums in the UK and has a capacity of more than 60,000 spectators. EC Markets also renewed its partnership with a prominent snooker star Judd Trump last year. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

Prediction markets have spent the past two years trying to prove they belong. This week, the establishment responded. The developments were more than symbolic: investment, integration, lawsuits, enforcement actions, academic scrutiny, and even the first serious attempts to wrap event contracts inside ETFs. Once tolerated as an experiment at the edge of crypto and betting culture, prediction markets are now being tested politically, legally, and institutionally. In other words, the system is striking back. Wall Street Cracks the Door Open The most significant signal came from the institutional universe. Tradeweb Markets announced a partnership with Kalshi, alongside a minority investment. Initially, Kalshi’s real-time event probabilities feed into Tradeweb’s institutional workflows and then eventually extend to trading access via an institutional-facing portal. That is not a fringe endorsement. Tradeweb is a core electronic marketplace operator in rates and credit. When a firm of that scale starts experimenting with event probabilities as inputs for macro risk assessment and capital allocation, prediction markets stop being a curiosity. The logic is straightforward. If bond desks already trade around policy expectations and macro releases, why not integrate crowd-implied probabilities directly into pricing and analytics? The infrastructure is there; the data just needed a distributor. Liquidity is following the same path. Jump Trading is set to take minority stakes in both Kalshi and Polymarket in exchange for providing liquidity. These arrangements resemble venture-style deals, but the strategic message is clearer: event contracts are liquid enough, and scalable enough, to justify serious market-making capital. The establishment is not dismissing prediction markets. It is wiring them in.The growth narrative is compelling. Capital is flowing. Platforms are scaling. Volume is accelerating.Sports: From Episodic Bets to Continuous Flow If Wall Street is testing the macro use case, sports may be where scale truly lies. Startup Pred, a peer-to-peer sports prediction exchange, raised $2.5 million in funding led by Accel, with participation from Coinbase Ventures. It promises 200-millisecond execution, spreads under 2%, and an exchange model where traders face each other rather than a house. The pitch is telling. Elections and macro events are episodic. Sports are continuous, global, and high-frequency. A $500 billion global sports betting economy already exists — mostly controlled by sportsbooks that manage risk internally and limit winners. Pred’s model reframes sports prediction as a trader-driven marketplace. Whether it succeeds is secondary to what it represents. Capital is now funding purpose-built exchange infrastructure for sports predictions, not merely retrofitting general-purpose crypto tools. At the same time, the Super Bowl narrative continues to reverberate. Analysts estimate prediction markets captured roughly 80% of year-on-year wagering growth around the event, leveraging federal CFTC oversight rather than state gambling licenses. That “regulatory flank” has not gone unnoticed. And it has consequences. The Courts Push Back While institutional platforms integrate and startups raise funding, regulators are drawing harder lines. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Gaming Authority ordered Polymarket to cease operations for offering unlicensed games of chance, threatening weekly fines of €420,000. The regulator rejected the platform’s argument that prediction markets are not gambling and warned of social risks, including election-related concerns. In the United States, state-level enforcement continues. Nevada regulators scored a procedural win when a federal appeals court rejected Kalshi’s emergency request to pause enforcement. Meanwhile, nearly 50 active legal cases are unfolding across jurisdictions. The most forceful response, however, came from the federal side. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael Selig filed an amicus brief asserting the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and warning that it “will no longer sit idly by” while states attempt to block them. “We will see you in court,” Selig said. This is no longer a question of product positioning. It is a jurisdictional fight over who governs a fast-growing derivatives category. Prediction markets are entering the establishment — and the establishment is answering in courtrooms. Do the Markets Actually Work?As capital flows in and regulators push back, a more fundamental question emerges: do prediction markets actually function the way their advocates claim? The academic case remains strong — at least on the surface. A recent study analysing more than 300,000 contracts on Kalshi finds that prices broadly track realised outcomes. Contracts priced at 50 cents win roughly half the time, and accuracy improves as expiration approaches. [Insert Figure 1: Win Percentages Sorted by Price] The pattern is hard to dismiss. As events draw closer, information accumulates and prices converge toward actual probabilities. On that front, prediction markets behave as advertised: they aggregate dispersed information into a single number. But pricing accuracy is not the same as economic fairness. [Insert Figure 2: Post-Fee Return Across Price Ranges] As capital flows and legal battles intensify, academics are quietly dissecting the economics. A recent study analysing over 300,000 contracts on Kalshi found that prices broadly reflect probabilities and improve as expiry approaches. In that sense, prediction markets are informative. Contracts priced at 50 cents win roughly half the time, and accuracy improves as expiration approaches.But they also display a classic favourite-longshot bias. Low-priced contracts win less often than required to break even, while higher-priced contracts win slightly more often, resulting in strongly negative returns for those buying cheap “lottery-like” outcomes. The average pre-fee return across contracts was estimated at-20%. The implication is uncomfortable but important. Prediction markets may be good at aggregating information. They are not necessarily good at distributing profits evenly. If event contracts are to become embedded in institutional workflows and ETF wrappers — and several issuers are now seeking election-linked funds — their economic mechanics will face more scrutiny. Legitimacy invites analysis.Bottom Line This week was not about hype. It was about resistance. Tradeweb integrates. Jump provides liquidity. Startups build exchange-grade sports infrastructure. ETF issuers prepare political funds. Regulators fine, litigate, and assert jurisdiction. Academics test the model. Prediction markets are no longer asking whether they belong. They are behaving as if they do. The establishment, for its part, is no longer ignoring them. It is investing, regulating, and, when necessary, pushing back. If the past two years were about expansion, this phase is about consolidation. The next chapter will not be written solely by traders or founders, but by exchanges, courts, regulators, and institutional allocators. The least predictable outcome may not be the result of the next election or sporting event. It may be who ultimately controls the markets that sets their prices. This article was written by Tanya Chepkova at www.financemagnates.com.

South Korean lawmakers are pushing for closer scrutiny of the country’s cryptocurrency market following a technical error at Bithumb, one of the nation’s largest exchanges.Earlier this month, Bithumb mistakenly credited users with Bitcoin it did not hold. The error briefly triggered a surge in sell orders. Officials said the incident revealed potential gaps in market oversight.$43Billion Bithumb Mistake Prompts RulesThe Financial Services Commission has proposed limiting major shareholders’ stakes in domestic crypto exchanges. The measure is intended to strengthen governance under the forthcoming Digital Asset Basic Act.Bithumb said it miscredited each user with 2,000 BTC instead of 2,000 Korean won (about $1.40), totaling 620,000 BTC. Most of the miscredited assets were later recovered. The exchange reported 125 BTC, worth roughly $8.6 million, remained unrecovered. Bithumb pledged to improve verification and monitoring systems. Industry reports estimated the total miscredit at about $43billion before most assets were corrected.? South Korean authorities under fire over $43B Bithumb Bitcoin error (https://t.co/0xYXvTMNBq)https://t.co/k6N1KPPlXu #Bitcoin— Kobocoin (@kobocoindev) February 20, 2026Lawmakers Criticize FSC Oversight FailuresTraditional financial firms are showing growing interest in the sector. Mirae Asset Financial Group is reportedly exploring a major stake in a local exchange, reflecting institutional positioning in South Korea’s crypto market.Lawmakers criticized the FSC for prior oversight. Representative Kang Min-guk of the opposition People Power Party said the incident showed “broader structural issues in the local crypto market,” including gaps in regulation and oversight. The FSC had inspected Bithumb at least three times since 2022.South Korea Faces Persistent Crypto Oversight ChallengesThe FSC opened an investigation on February 10. Officials initially expected it to conclude within days, but it has been extended to the end of February. Authorities said they would take “stern legal actions against acts that harm the market order.” Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won told lawmakers the exchange had previously experienced two smaller payout errors, which were corrected.The incident raises further concerns over South Korea’s handling of digital assets. Previous cases, including missing Bitcoin from police and prosecutors’ offices, have prompted questions about custody and security. Analysts say persistent challenges remain in oversight and asset management in the country’s cryptocurrency sector. This article was written by Tareq Sikder at www.financemagnates.com.

“This marks our largest sponsorship to date, not just in monetary value but in strategic impact as well,” says Peter Aust, COO at FxPro, referring to the latest renewal of its partnership with McLaren’s Formula One. The UK-headquartered retail broker was a first mover in the racing sport by sponsoring Virgin Racing in 2009, followed by BMW Sauber in 2010 and in 2018, it inked its first deal with McLaren. This marks the third extension of that relationship. “The 2025 season was extraordinary for both organisations,” Aust explains. “FxPro had a record performance across every major business metric, while McLaren delivered a historic year by securing both the Drivers’ and Constructors’ Championships. After sharing this upward journey together since 2018, renewing the partnership following such a milestone felt like a natural progression rather than a difficult decision.”The New Deal Brings Visibility to Prime Real Estate The extended partnership is expected to further boost FxPro’s visibility. The broker’s branding already appeared on the inner sides of the cars near the wing mirrors – a spot frequently picked on by onboard cameras – and on team sleeves, keeping the logo in plain sight across pit-lan action, the pit wall and crew’s official kit. The logo will now also feature on the backs of the drivers’ helmets. “Beyond race coverage, these are often showcased across promotional displays and media assets,further extending our reach,” he notes.Aust doesn’t disclose the cost of the extended partnership, typical in Formula One, where teams and sponsors rarely publish financial terms. Still, Marios Chalis, Chief Marketing Officer at Libertex, which sponsors now-Audi’s F1 team (previously Kick Sauber), had previously indicated that even a lower-tier Formula One sponsorship costs about US$5 million. “More broadly,” Aust tells Finance Magnates, “our total investment in sponsorships to date is close to one-third of a billion US dollars. We see partnerships of this calibre as a key part of our global growth.”The Real Return Is F1’s Global Reach Calculating the return on such sponsorship is, unsurprisingly, imprecise. There is no tidy funnel linking a TV viewer glimpsing the FxPro logo during a McLaren pit-lane shot to a newly opened trading account.Instead, success is measured through reach, market penetration and brand equity.Formula One’s own numbers help justify that logic. In the first half of 2025, China accounted for 221 million fans, a year-on-year increase of 39%, a market Aust describes as “strategically important.”The sport is also thriving across Latin America and the Middle East, key regions for retail brokers, with the season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in December 2025 averaging 1.5 million viewers on ESPN, peaking at 1.8 million – an event record. According to Aust, FxPro’s strategy has evolved accordingly. The company once focused on Premier League sponsorships to target the UK, but today the EU accounts for less than 3% of its business, and no single market contributes a double-digit share. “We went down the F1 route because we wanted to align with a company and a sport that would be as global as us,” he highlights. Reaching Gen Z’sDemographics also play a role, with Formula One increasingly resonating with younger audiences: in 2025, 43% of its 827 million global fans were aged 35 and under. The audience is also becoming more balanced, with women now accounting for nearly 42% of the fanbase. McLaren – and its sponsors – has benefited handsomely from shifting demographics. A 2021 survey found the team to be the overall fan favourite among Gen Z audiences. Much of that popularity rests on its youthful and charismatic driver line-up, especially Norris, who today commands 3.1 million followers on TikTok and maintains one of the sport’s most interactive personal websites, where his helmet, now bearing the FxPro logo, is prominently displayed. “As the popularity of trading continues to expand globally, aligning with a sport and a team that is simultaneously growing younger and more diverse directly supports FxPro’s long-term growth ambitions,” he says. “McLaren Offers Credibility That Few Teams Can Match” FxPro’s earlier experiences in Formula One offered cautionary lessons: Virgin Racing was an untested entrant and BMW Sauber withdrew from the sport. So, the company’s criteria changed. “We focused exclusively on historic teams with strong infrastructure and clear future trajectory,” Aust explains. McLaren’s distinctive identity was equally important. “Rooted in over 60 years of racing history across multiple disciplines, McLaren offers credibility that few teams can match. Watching its transformation under Zak Brown’s leadership into championship contenders and winners has made the partnership hugely rewarding,” he says. This article was written by Adonis Adoni, Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.

After a delay of about eight months, iFOREX has set a possible listing date of 25 February 2025. The move appears to be strategic, as the contracts for differences broker ended Q4 2025 with revenue of $13.5 million and EBITDA of about $2 million. The figures recovered from the previous quarter, when they were $7.7 million and negative $3.1 million, respectively.Flat Revenue, but Lower ProfitThe initial public offering (IPO) prospectus published yesterday (Thursday) also noted that the group generated $27.6 million in H1 2025, bringing annual revenue to $48.8 million, which is still below the $50.1 million recorded in 2024.Adjusted EBITDA for last year is expected to be about $4 million, down from $9.7 million the year before.This shows that the company has kept its IPO valuation at 1.1x of its revenue.Net profit for the first six months of 2025 came in at over $1.2 million, down 63.5 per cent year over year. Annual net profit in 2024 was $5.1 million, compared with $26.1 million in 2022 and $6.7 million in 2023.“The Group has positive momentum into FY26,” the prospectus noted.iFOREX, which operates with licences in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, is aiming to raise £8.75 million at a valuation of about £43.3 million. It is expected to receive about $6.07 million after commissions and deductions.The contracts for differences (CFDs) broker will use the majority of the proceeds, $1.5 million, to automate its customer onboarding and growth processes. It will also allocate another $1 million to investment in further automation software and products for its onboarding and AI risk management systems.Read more: AI Takes Center Stage in Brokers’ Layoff NarrativesIt will also use about $500,000 to enter new markets and accelerate growth in existing ones, and a similar amount to improve its human resources.Its decision to go public is supported by the belief that the move would raise its profile and help it access new markets, regulatory authorisations, and pursue strategic M&A opportunities.Founded by Eyal Carmon, iFOREX traces its origins to 1996 under different brands. It received its Cyprus licence in 2011 and its BVI licence in 2013. Over 95 per cent of its revenue came from the offshore entity, while the rest was generated by the Cyprus-registered one.The majority of transactions on the platform, 37 per cent, are in currency pairs, followed by 33 per cent in commodities, 19 per cent in indices, and 8 per cent in cryptocurrencies. The remaining 3 per cent came from stocks and ETFs in 2024.Carmon, who is now the sole shareholder of the CFD broker, will not sell any of his stake. However, even after the IPO, he will continue to be the largest shareholder with 58.91 per cent of the stake.The broker is currently led by Itai Sadeh as its CEO. Recovery after a DropiFOREX’s 2025 revenue clearly took a hit due to weak Q3 results. It attributed the weaker quarter to low market volatility and the impact of its IPO delay. It further noted that due to low market volatility, it “implemented a short-term revenue initiative which was ineffective and it was promptly reversed.”Notably, 70 per cent of its revenue is generated from dealing spreads.The majority of iFOREX’s client base is in East Asia, India, and the Middle East. It had 20,159 active clients in the first six months of 2025, broadly similar to a year earlier.Asia, predominantly Japan, remained its top revenue generator, bringing in over $10.6 million between January and June 2025. Revenue from MENA and South Asia, driven by India, was about $8 million and $5 million, respectively.Read more: iForex IPO Aims to Enter New Markets and Reverse Revenue Dependence on AsiaHowever, the figures remain significantly lower than the 2022 peak, which, according to iFOREX, was due to “a significant drop in spread revenues and trading P&L revenues.”Notably, the broker does not have a licence in any of its key markets — Japan, India, or MENA. In practice, it can only reverse solicit traders from those jurisdictions.iFOREX was also placed on warning lists by regulators in its key markets.Related: India Hikes Trading Tax, Will It Push Traders to ‘Unregulated’ CFDs?It intends to use the funds to secure regulatory licenses in Australia, Malaysia, the UAE, Chile, and the UK.Interestingly, iFOREX’s marketing budget also increased in the first six months of 2025: it spent $21.3 million on selling and marketing, up from $15.6 million a year earlier. Its total marketing spend in 2024 was $35.9 million, down from $46.7 million in 2022.The broker, which is B-book heavy, also appears to have reduced risks from the one-sided rally in gold, especially in January. As at 17 February 2026, its residual net exposure was $30.7 million, representing 21.5 per cent of all outstanding positions.iFOREX also remains debt-free, with a net cash balance of $6.7 million at the end of 2025. This article was written by Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.

Prop Trading Firm Pairs Industry Recognition With Measured Payout Metrics and System DisclosureHolaPrime(https://holaprime.com/awards/) has been named “Fastest Payout Prop Firm – MEA 2026” at the Ultimate Fintech (UF) Awards MEA during iFX EXPO Dubai, one of the region’s leading fintech and trading industry gatherings. Instead of leading with the award alone, the proprietary trading firm released internal payout performance data and its payout control framework - positioning operational transparency as part of its funded trader model.According to firm-reported payout records, Hola Prime’s average profit split payout is completed in 33 minutes and 48 seconds, with the fastest recorded payout processed in 3 minutes and 37 seconds. The firm reports an average payout size of approximately $4,500, indicating that timelines in the report reflect standard funded account payouts rather than just some nominal transactions. As part of its commitment to transparency, the firm made the reports publicly accessible on its official website.In the prop trading industry, payout cycles often extend into multi-day timelines due to post-request account audits, manual checks of rules, compliance and KYC checks, and arranging funds. Hola Prime states that its payout performance comes from moving those controls earlier in the lifecycle of the account, rather than compressing them at the payout stage.A fundamental factor in the prop trading industry is the planning of funds. The prop firms need to pay attention to the flow of their revenue, against the amounts they owe to traders. Many prop firms fail because of their lack of ability to do this planning and execution effectively.Hola Prime operates what it describes as a 10-point payout system for funded accounts - a structured pipeline that includes continuous rule-adherence monitoring, real-time profit split calculation, pre-allocated daily payout funds, surge cash flow buffers, ongoing KYC and AML screening, maker–checker authorization, automated payout rail selection by region and method, priority processing for fully verified traders, end-of-day treasury and ledger reconciliation, and full audit-trail generation for every payout. By running verification, compliance readiness, and funds provisioning in parallel, the payout step becomes an execution event rather than a review trigger. All of this runs parallel to their copy trading systems at the back end, which makes them one of the few firms invested in trader success.“Fast payouts don’t come from processing faster - they come from designing the payout pipeline correctly. When rule checks, profit calculations, and cash flow provisioning are engineered upstream, execution time compresses naturally. That’s a systems result, and systems results can be measured,” said Somesh Kapuria, CEO of Hola Prime.As prop trading expands globally, traders are increasingly evaluating firms on payout reliability and processing transparency alongside evaluation rules, scaling models, and profit split ratios. In that environment, disclosed payout metrics function as an operational signal - not just a service claim.About Hola PrimeHolaPrime is a premier proprietary trading firm dedicated to empowering skilled traders with substantial capital and professional-grade tools. Recognized for its commitment to speed and transparency, Hola Prime offers a secure environment for traders across Forex, Futures, and Commodities, backed by a robust payout infrastructure. This article was written by FM Contributors at www.financemagnates.com.

The Era of the Digital SpectatorFor the better part of two decades, the average internet user has existed in a state of passive consumption. We have been trained to view the internet as a service that happens to us—a top-down delivery of data, entertainment, and utility managed by a handful of centralized gatekeepers. In this model, the user is the customer at best and the product at worst. We provide our attention and our data in exchange for access to platforms we do not own and infrastructure we do not control.This "spectator" identity has led to a fundamental disconnect between the value we generate and the control we exert. While our digital lives have become more complex, our role in the physical architecture of the web has remained stagnant. We pay for resources we don't fully use and rely on remote data centers that prioritize corporate scale over individual sovereignty. NodeLink is challenging this status quo by introducing a new digital identity: the Infrastructure Pillar.Shifting from User to Participant with the NX1The rise of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) represents a psychological and structural shift in how we relate to technology. It moves the individual from the sidelines of the digital economy directly into its engine room. When you integrate an NX1 device into your home, you are no longer just "using" the internet; you are sustaining the global grid.This transition is powered by more than just bandwidth. The NX1 activates the dedicated RAM and CPU power within your home, turning your living room into a high-performance compute node. By moving from a position of dependency to one of contribution, you are providing the foundational support that the next generation of AI and data services require. This is an active role that carries both agency and reward, transforming the home into a vital node in a global, resilient grid.The NX1: Your Passport and ProtectorAt the heart of this identity shift is the NX1 hardware. It is more than just a piece of technology; it is a gateway to a participatory economy. Traditionally, participating in global infrastructure required massive capital and technical expertise. NodeLink has democratized this process, making it accessible to any household.But being an Infrastructure Pillar also comes with personal protection. Every NX1 provides a comprehensive suite of premium services for five people during five years at no extra cost, including an enterprise-grade VPN, AI Security, a Password Manager, and an Ad Blocker. This reflects our philosophy that those who build the web should be the most protected by it. By deploying the device and adding Participation Units (PU), individuals seamlessly bridge the gap between their daily lives and the global digital landscape, operating with a "silent power" that secures both the grid and their own home.Redefining Value in the "DePIN of DePINs" EraIn the centralized cloud era, value was something captured by corporations. In the DePIN era, value is co-created by the network's participants. As NodeLink builds the "DePIN of DePINs," your role as an Infrastructure Pillar becomes even more significant. You are providing the base layer upon which future decentralized projects will deploy their own hardware and services.Through the NodeLink dashboard, you can see the real-time impact of your contribution. This visibility reinforces your new digital identity, providing tangible proof that your NX1 is helping power the global AI revolution. It is a shift toward a more equitable digital world where the rewards of infrastructure growth—generated over a sustained five-year horizon—are distributed back to those who provide the foundation.About NodeLinkNodeLink is a pioneer in Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN), dedicated to transforming how the world builds and sustains digital connectivity. We provide the essential edge-based foundation needed to power the next generation of digital innovation. By bridging the gap between idle resources and global demand, NodeLink is fostering a community-powered internet where contribution is rewarded and the future of connectivity belongs to everyone. This article was written by FM Contributors at www.financemagnates.com.