---

Forex multi-account manager Z-X-N
Accepts global forex account operation, investment, and trading
Assists family office investment and autonomous management

---

Foreign exchange banks do not have a prejudice against large-capital investors.

---

In the two-way trading scenario of foreign exchange investment, foreign exchange banks do not have a prejudice against large-capital investors. The reason they require such investors to provide proof of the source of funds when depositing funds, even if the funds originate from the top ten mainstream banks globally, is primarily due to a comprehensive consideration of multiple necessary factors, including compliance with national and global financial regulatory requirements and the control of their own operational risks. The specific internal logic can be broken down from several aspects.
Firstly, it is to comply with the strict anti-money laundering and other related regulatory requirements at the national and global levels. As financial entities directly regulated by national financial market supervision and management agencies, foreign exchange banks need to strictly implement relevant regulatory guidelines for anti-money laundering and combating terrorist financing. Among various types of financial funds, large sums of money are always the key targets for illegal financial activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, requiring large investors to provide proof of the source of funds is a crucial measure for foreign exchange banks to fulfill their legal obligations of due diligence. This operation effectively verifies that funds do not originate from illegal channels such as drug trafficking or smuggling, thus preventing the bank from becoming a conduit for the legalization of illicit funds. Violation of such regulations will result in hefty fines, restrictions on license usage, and a series of severe penalties, seriously impacting the bank's core operations.
Secondly, it is to match the risk control needs corresponding to the bank's operational scale. Compared to large multinational banks, most foreign exchange banks have relatively limited overall operational scale. Large-scale inflows and outflows of funds place significant practical pressure on their core operational aspects such as fund management and liquidity allocation. More importantly, if these large sums of money are involved in legal disputes or are deemed illicit by regulatory agencies, foreign exchange banks are highly likely to be embroiled in complex legal investigations and may even face severe risks such as fund freezes. Such situations can severely impact their overall operational system. By verifying the source of large funds in advance, foreign exchange banks can effectively filter out these potential risks, thereby ensuring the stability and continuity of their overall operations.
Furthermore, this is to clarify transaction boundaries, thereby simultaneously ensuring business compliance and investor rights. Most foreign exchange banks set quarterly deposit limits. Transactions within the limit can be processed automatically according to the regular process, while transactions exceeding the limit require investors to provide supplementary information such as proof of the source of funds. This mechanism is not a restriction specifically designed for large-scale investors; its core purpose is to clearly distinguish between regular and special transactions. After all, even large sums of money transferred from mainstream banks may have special sources of funds, such as inheritance or real estate sales. Requiring proof further clarifies the legality of the funds. From the bank's perspective, this requirement provides a basis for its transaction review process, effectively avoiding various legal disputes arising from doubts about the source of funds. From the investor's perspective, this measure effectively prevents large sums of money from flowing into the bank after investors have been defrauded, or large transfers after investors' accounts have been stolen, thus indirectly protecting investors' funds.
Finally, this is to unify customer management standards and avoid potential loopholes at the rule level. Given that foreign exchange banks typically provide financial services to clients in most countries globally, relaxing the review standards for large sums of money simply because the funds originate from mainstream banks would inevitably create significant loopholes in their business rules. For example, some illicit funds might be transferred through intermediary accounts at mainstream banks before being transferred to foreign exchange bank accounts to conceal their illegal nature. Differentiated review standards would provide opportunities for such violations. Therefore, uniformly requiring all large sums exceeding the limit to provide proof of origin can effectively prevent such regulatory evasion, ensure consistent review standards for all investors, and thus maintain the fairness of financial services and the rigor of business operations.

In the two-way trading field of foreign exchange investment, pending orders, with their unique trading logic, have become a high-quality solution to help traders overcome the core weakness of "impatience for waiting," a human flaw. Their intrinsic value can be deeply analyzed by combining human characteristics with practical trading scenarios.

---

In traditional social life, "waiting" is an extremely common behavior. For example, waiting for someone to handle a matter, sometimes even after several hours, the other party still hasn't appeared. However, due to the need to get things done, traders often have no choice but to endure the wait, especially when they need something from someone. They also need to suppress any potential frustration and anger, maintaining a facade of patience. This passive and prolonged waiting process often leads to a strong sense of breakdown and anxiety. This human trait is amplified and has a negative impact in the forex trading scenario.
Focusing on the two-way trading market of forex investment, one of the core problems for most traders who suffer losses is their inability to wait rationally. They are always eager to open positions, eager to reap short-term profits, and eager to close positions and exit. Even when their judgment of the overall market trend is completely correct, they find it difficult to tolerate short-term floating losses during the holding period. They often close positions prematurely before the trend has fully developed and the profit potential has been realized, ultimately missing out on substantial gains. The root cause of this series of actions is the human tendency to lack patience for waiting.
It is precisely because of this pain point in trading that the value of pending orders is fully highlighted, making it an excellent method to address the human tendency to be unable to tolerate waiting. In actual trading, traders can use pending orders to wait for advantageous entry points, eliminating the need to constantly monitor the market and avoid impulsive, emotionally driven entry. Pending orders also lock in ideal exit points, preventing premature profit-taking or stop-loss orders due to emotional imbalance caused by market fluctuations. More importantly, by placing multiple small pending orders, traders can effectively avoid the agonizing wait of facing floating losses when holding large positions, thus diversifying trading risk and alleviating the psychological pressure caused by large fluctuations in a single position.
From the perspective of advancing trading skills, when traders truly learn and master the logic and techniques of pending order trading, it signifies a key breakthrough in their trading mindset and operational system. They have essentially acquired the core qualities for achieving stable profits in the forex market, taking a crucial step towards trading success.

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, MAM (Multi-Account Management) and PAMM (Percentage Allocation Management) are essentially managed services systems in the forex market, but this mechanism has not been recognized by regulatory agencies in most parts of the world.

---

Foreign exchange regulatory authorities in countries such as the United States, Japan, and France have explicitly rejected this type of business model. The core reason is that this mechanism is extremely prone to causing multi-dimensional risks and problems, including damage to investor rights, difficulty in regulatory implementation, and violations of compliance red lines. The specific underlying logic can be analyzed from multiple levels.
Firstly, the difficulty of protecting investor rights under this mechanism is extremely high, and the potential risks are very prominent. In the MAM and PAMM operating models, investors must completely entrust the management of their funds to fund managers. Their profits and losses depend entirely on the manager's professional competence and ethics. However, many fund managers in the current market lack the necessary qualifications, posing a serious threat to investors' capital security. For example, some unqualified managers, in pursuit of short-term high returns, may adopt overly aggressive trading strategies, blindly leveraging their positions for heavy trading. If the forex market reverses, investors will suffer huge losses. Even worse, some may collude with forex brokers to illegally profit, using methods such as malicious order placement to earn high commissions and falsifying trading records to directly seize investors' principal and profits. Meanwhile, investors have extremely weak control over the trading process under this mechanism. The details of MAM and PAMM trading order allocation and risk control logic are relatively complex, making it difficult for ordinary investors to detect abnormal operations on their own. Furthermore, when losses occur, it is often difficult to hold fund managers or brokers accountable due to unclear standards for liability determination and difficulties in establishing a chain of evidence. This is precisely why Japan enacted explicit provisions in the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act to restrict entities without proper qualifications from managing the financial assets of others. The core purpose is to prevent the frequent occurrence of such incidents that harm investor rights.
Secondly, the traditional regulatory system is ill-suited to the operational logic of this mechanism, easily creating regulatory blind spots. The unique trading models and fund flow paths of MAM and PAMM pose a significant challenge to the traditional foreign exchange regulatory framework. On the one hand, there is a problem of unclear division of responsibilities among multiple parties throughout the entire fund management process. Forex brokers often claim that they only provide trading channels and do not participate in actual trading decisions, while fund managers are responsible for specific trade execution. Once a violation occurs and a risk event occurs, both parties can easily shift responsibility, making it difficult for regulatory agencies to quickly identify the core responsible party and increasing the difficulty of regulatory handling. On the other hand, this mechanism is characterized by cross-platform and cross-regional operation. Some fund managers deliberately choose to open accounts with brokers registered in regions with lax regulations to receive funds from investors in other countries. This cross-border operation directly breaks through the regulatory boundaries of a single country, making it impossible for regulatory authorities to comprehensively and in real-time track fund flows and complete transaction records. This provides opportunities for illegal financial activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing. For example, France has issued explicit regulations prohibiting entities without compliance qualifications from receiving investor funds and conducting trading business through the MAM or PAMM mechanisms, thereby preventing regulatory loopholes from being exploited by illegal forces.
Furthermore, this mechanism is highly susceptible to violating the financial compliance and qualification management requirements of some countries. Most countries that implement strict regulations on the foreign exchange market have set stringent qualification standards for asset management services, and the MAM and PAMM mechanisms can easily circumvent these regulatory rules in practice. Taking the US market as an example, institutions offering managed trading services must obtain CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor) qualifications. In the UK, practitioners are required to possess professional investment manager qualifications and sign multi-party compliance agreements with investors and brokers, covering the scope of authorization, service fee details, and risk-bearing definitions. However, in practice, many MAM and PAMM fund managers obtain limited account operation authorization only through forex brokers before directly engaging in managed trading without obtaining the corresponding compliance qualifications required by regulatory authorities. This behavior directly violates local financial regulations. For regulatory agencies, recognizing the compliance of the MAM and PAMM mechanisms is tantamount to condoning unqualified entities providing financial services, severely disrupting the qualification management order of the financial market. Therefore, they directly deny their compliance attributes.
Finally, the inherent loopholes in the trading mechanisms themselves easily trigger market volatility and trading disputes. The trading allocation logic of MAM and PAMM has unavoidable flaws that can cause multiple problems at both the trading and market levels. Taking the PAMM mechanism as an example, its operation involves pooling funds from all participating investors into a single account for trading. If a large investor withdraws funds midway through a position, it severely disrupts the overall risk control strategy, impacting the interests of other smaller investors and potentially triggering group trading disputes. While the MAM mechanism employs separate copy trading, it is highly susceptible to copying errors in practice. Furthermore, when batch orders are placed and executed simultaneously, they can cause a concentrated shock to the market price of specific currency pairs in a short period, disrupting the normal trading order of the forex market. In addition, some MAM and PAMM mechanisms are used in conjunction with Automated Expert Advisors (EAs). These trading models often feature high trading frequency and high leverage, significantly amplifying the financial risk of individual investors and increasing the uncertainty of the entire forex market. This contradicts the regulatory goals of some countries seeking stable forex market operations, a key reason why relevant regulatory agencies reject this mechanism.

In London, Sydney, Nicosia, Frankfurt, and even Dubai, MAM and PAMM have not been labeled as inherently sinful. Regulators have chosen a "high-threshold, transparent, and traceable" entry path, incorporating aggregated accounts into the existing asset management framework to replace a ban.

---

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) considers managed accounts as "regulated activities of investment managers." Any natural or legal entity must first obtain "portfolio management" authorization under MiFIDII, and then sign a tripartite "Investment Advisory and Custody Agreement" with the broker and client, clearly defining the investment scope, leverage limit, performance disclosure frequency, and dispute arbitration procedures. Managers must also join the Financial Ombudsman Scheme (FOS) to ensure that client complaints have an independent remedy.
In its daily operations, the FCA requires MAM terminals to upload daily details of holdings, valuations, and cash flows to the Regulatory Reporting System (REGIS). Any account with a daily net asset value fluctuation exceeding 5% will automatically trigger an inquiry, thereby shifting from "post-event accountability" to "in-process intervention."
After capping retail forex leverage at 1:30 in 2021, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) simultaneously included PAMM in the Retail OTC Derivatives Product Intervention Order, stipulating that the fund pool must be held in separate custody by an Australian bank and that an audited "Net Asset Value Statement" (NAV) must be published daily. If a manager wishes to raise funds externally, they must first apply for an AFSL (Agency Fund of Investments) license, submitting a prospectus, liquidity stress test, and an orderly liquidation plan. For professional clients, a 1:100 leverage ratio can be maintained, but large-scale subscription and redemption details must be reported to ASIC within 24 hours to prevent sudden cross-border capital outflows from amplifying market shocks. The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), leveraging the EU's Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) directive, packages MAM (Managed Asset Management) pools as "Alternative Investment Funds" (AIFs), mandating the hiring of independent custodians, administrative service providers, and auditors for triple checks and balances. While annual operating costs are as high as 8-10 basis points, this grants them EU passport rights, allowing managers to publicly sell in 31 member states.
The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) takes a more cautious stance: aggregated accounts are classified as "Special Asset Management" (Spezial-AIF) under the Investment Act, with an initial threshold of €1 million, and must disclose a Key Facts Statement (KIID) in the Federal Electronic Gazette (Bundesanzeiger). Custodian banks are required to monitor each leveraged transaction daily. If margin usage exceeds 30% of net asset value, they must enforce liquidation and send an early warning to BaFin. The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA), utilizing the "Middle East Regional Fund" framework, allows MAMs to register as "accredited investor funds" in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), but still sets a minimum subscription amount of US$500,000 for retail clients and requires managers to hold both a CISI investment manager certificate and a Dubai-based compliance officer license, thus balancing the demands of financial center openness with systemic risk control.
In contrast, the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC)'s Class C license, while nominally allowing "collective asset management," has no on-site inspections or capital adequacy requirements. Annual reports only require a simplified balance sheet and do not require auditing. This lenient system attracts many offshore brokers to set up servers in Sydney or Singapore, yet use VFSC licenses to attract clients, creating a gray corridor of "regulatory arbitrage—funds leaving the country—no recourse for disputes." The OECD listed Vanuatu as a "high-risk jurisdiction" as early as 2019, noting that its anti-money laundering assessment only met 64% of the FATF standards. For investors, the seemingly convenient MAM/PAMM access point is actually a break in the chain of rights protection.
Looking at the aforementioned jurisdictions, it's clear that mature financial centers generally adopt a three-pronged strategy of "licensing + continuous information disclosure + independent custody" for aggregated account models, exchanging high compliance costs for investor trust. Offshore jurisdictions, on the other hand, attract risk-taking capital through regulatory advantages but are powerless to provide judicial remedies when disputes arise. Choosing which regulatory framework for MAM/PAMM to follow is essentially the first and most crucial choice investors make between "leverage convenience" and "fund security."

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, there is no unified global standard for the qualification definition of individual managers under the MAM (Multi-Account Management) and PAMM (Percentage Allocation Management) models in forex managed trading services.

---

The core factor depends on the financial regulatory rules of the manager's country or region. At the same time, the forex brokers they cooperate with will also set additional entry conditions based on their own risk control needs. This results in significant differences in qualification definition standards across different regions. The specific definition logic can be analyzed in depth from the perspectives of regulatory requirements, regional details, and implicit industry thresholds.
From the perspective of core influencing factors, the rules of regulatory agencies in various countries are the primary basis for defining the qualifications of individual managers. Different regional regulatory frameworks will set clear requirements in terms of qualifications and licenses, capital thresholds, and compliance documents. In the UK financial market, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has strict qualification requirements for MAM/PAMM individual managers. Practitioners must obtain relevant Investment Manager qualifications and meet a series of supporting regulatory requirements. These include signing a formal Investment Management Agreement (IMA) with clients to clearly define the scope of services, division of responsibilities, and profit distribution. If managing retail investor assets, full compliance with the UK Markets in Financial Instruments Regulations (MiFID) is also required. The FCA sets differentiated capital thresholds for different-sized entities. Small, unaffiliated institutions must meet a minimum capital requirement of £75,000. Those handling client funds have higher equity reserve requirements and must submit internal capital adequacy assessment reports, organizational structure descriptions, and other compliance materials to the regulator. Furthermore, individual managers must sign a Limited Proxy Agreement (LPOA) with clients and partner brokers to clearly define the scope of authorization for trade execution and fund allocation, preventing unauthorized or illegal operations.
Under the US financial regulatory system, individuals wishing to serve as MAM/PAMM managers must obtain a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) qualification jointly recognized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This is the core entry threshold for the profession. During the qualification application stage, managers must provide regulatory agencies with detailed personal information, including their Social Security number, net worth, annual income, and other core financial and identity data. They must also submit basic verification documents such as proof of identity and address. For key personnel holding 10% or more of the equity in the relevant institution, identity information and professional background materials must also be submitted for record-keeping. In addition to qualification requirements, US regulatory agencies also impose strict information disclosure requirements on managers, stipulating that they must truthfully disclose to investors the logic behind their trading strategies, past performance data, and potential investment risks. They are strictly prohibited from misleading investors by concealing losses or exaggerating returns, thereby ensuring transparency and investors' right to know.
The Australian market includes MAM/PAMM personal managers in the qualification assessment scope of Responsible Managers, with qualification definition mainly focusing on three core dimensions: professional competence, work experience, and compliance reputation. Firstly, in terms of professional knowledge, practitioners need a financial-related academic background or authoritative industry certification. Secondly, regarding practical experience, they are required to have at least several years of experience directly related to forex trading, and the types of clients they have served in the past must match the types of clients they intend to serve, thus ensuring the ability to operate in the corresponding scenarios. Finally, in terms of compliance reputation, practitioners must have no adverse history related to financial industry regulatory bans, major violations, etc., and must pass a rigorous background check, providing letters of recommendation in their professional field to corroborate their good reputation. In addition, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) requires personal managers to continuously participate in professional skills training to ensure that their professional competence is aligned with the dynamic changes in the market environment and regulatory policies.
In some regions with more relaxed regulations, although local financial regulators do not mandate specific licenses for individual managers, the forex brokers they partner with set core entry thresholds based on their own business risk control needs to screen qualified strategy providers. Some brokers explicitly require PAMM strategy providers to provide at least six months of consistently profitable real trading account records, along with a portfolio of over $50,000 to demonstrate the stability of their capital management. Furthermore, they must submit a detailed trading strategy application form clearly explaining their trading logic, risk control system, and profit targets.
Besides regulatory requirements and broker thresholds, industry-standard implicit qualifications are also important standards for evaluating the capabilities of MAM/PAMM individual managers. Even if not mandated by regulators, investors and brokers use these as core reference points. In terms of performance, a manager's past trading record is a key focus, including whether they have a long-term track record of stable profits and whether their risk control capabilities meet standards. Quantitative indicators such as maximum drawdown rate are crucial evaluation dimensions. Regarding professional certifications, authoritative industry certifications such as the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and Chartered Market Technologist (CMT), while not legally mandated qualifications, significantly enhance a manager's market credibility. In terms of account management, some brokerages require managers to manage accounts with a certain total equity, such as at least $10,000, and require formal agreements with investors to clearly define profit-sharing ratios, maximum drawdown tolerance, and other core cooperation terms to protect the interests of both parties.

---

• 
• 

---

13711580480@139.com

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

z.x.n@139.com

Mr. Z-X-N

China · Guangzhou

---