---

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

---

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, while MAM (Multi-Account Management) and PAMM (Percentage Allocation Management) mechanisms possess certain security advantages by avoiding the Ponzi scheme risks in the fund holding stage, they have consistently failed to break through development bottlenecks and become the mainstream trading model in the forex market due to a combination of factors, including regulatory restrictions, technical architecture defects, market trust crises, imbalances in profit distribution, and the impact of emerging trading models in the AI ​​era. Their core pain points can be comprehensively analyzed from multiple dimensions.

---

Firstly, the layers of regulatory restrictions directly compress the compliant survival space of the MAM/PAMM mechanism. Most countries globally have set strict regulatory constraints on the qualifications of practitioners and the overall operating model of forex trading services, which significantly hinders the large-scale promotion of MAM/PAMM. For example, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) explicitly requires that entities acting as MAM/PAMM managers must hold a formal investment management license and meet a capital reserve requirement of at least £75,000. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stipulates that traders must obtain Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) qualifications and fully disclose detailed trading strategy logic, past performance data, and potential risk information to investors. In actual industry operations, many small trading teams or individual practitioners simply cannot meet these stringent qualification and capital thresholds, forcing them to operate in a regulatory gray area. This has led large, reputable forex brokers to hesitate to promote the MAM/PAMM model on a large scale due to compliance considerations. For instance, leading forex brokers like Gain Capital attempted to launch PAMM-related services, but ultimately had to cancel the service due to continuously rising regulatory risks and frequent customer complaints. Furthermore, some countries have issued direct bans, prohibiting individuals from providing managed trading services without proper qualifications. Even if the MAM/PAMM mechanism itself does not involve fund holding, it will still be subject to strict restrictions from regulatory agencies for being deemed "illegally providing investment management services."
Secondly, the technical mechanism has inherent flaws, significantly negatively impacting the trading experience and fund security. The underlying technical architecture of MAM/PAMM has many insurmountable weaknesses. The most prominent are the issues of copy trading capacity and signal latency. Traditional MAM/PAMM systems typically support only about 100 MT4 accounts simultaneously copy trading, and the transmission of trading signals heavily relies on third-party servers. Significant delays occur in signal transmission from the trader's main account to the investor's sub-account. This latency easily leads to deviations between the actual buy and sell prices in the sub-account and the main account, resulting in an asymmetric profit situation where the main account profits while the sub-account loses. Regarding operational transparency, ordinary investors under the PAMM model cannot view detailed transaction records in real time. The trading decisions and actions of the operators are opaque. Even without the risk of misappropriation of funds, excessive trading and malicious order placement can still harm investor interests. Investors, lacking complete transaction data, often find it difficult to provide evidence for effective rights protection. In terms of account coordination, PAMM accounts combine the funds of all participating investors proportionally for trading. If a large investor withdraws funds midway through a position, it can easily lead to a severe imbalance in the position ratio of the remaining accounts, resulting in collective losses. While MAM accounts use an independent copy trading model, the differences in fund size between different sub-accounts can easily lead to practical problems such as "small accounts not being able to match the trading volume of the main account," affecting the copy trading effect.
Furthermore, the long-term lack of market trust keeps investors skeptical of the MAM/PAMM model. The forex market itself is high-risk, and the long-standing industry chaos in the MAM/PAMM field further exacerbates investor distrust. Regarding the qualifications and performance of traders, performance fraud is extremely common. Some traders exaggerate their trading abilities by forging historical trading records and deliberately concealing maximum drawdown data to attract investors. The existing mechanisms of MAM/PAMM cannot effectively verify the authenticity of this performance data. Even with the endorsement of a legitimate platform, it is difficult to eliminate the industry's chronic problem of "attracting funds with short-term profits and then exploiting investors with long-term losses." Regarding profit promises, many traders use highly enticing language such as "10% monthly return" and "guaranteed principal and returns." However, the forex market is inherently highly volatile, and such promises are often unfulfilled. Once substantial losses occur, investors are highly likely to have disputes with the traders and brokers. Regulatory agencies usually determine that such verbal profit promises are not legally valid, and the final losses must be borne by the investors themselves. Furthermore, numerous non-compliant platforms have used the MAM/PAMM model for false advertising and even disguised fundraising activities in the past, leading investors to form a stereotype that this model is "associated with fraud." Even legitimate MAM/PAMM businesses have struggled to reverse this negative perception and gain market trust.
Simultaneously, the imbalance between profit distribution and risk-bearing further reduces the attractiveness of the MAM/PAMM model to investors. The profit distribution structure of this mechanism is inherently unfavorable to investors. In terms of profit sharing, traders typically take 20%-30% of the profits as management fees, while losses are entirely borne by the investor. This "profit sharing, loss-bearing" model incentivizes traders to engage in high-risk trading in pursuit of higher commissions, resulting in a severe mismatch between the risks faced by investors and the potential returns. In terms of liquidity, some MAM/PAMM products impose "lock-up periods" lasting several months. During these periods, investors cannot withdraw funds, and even if they discover the trader's performance is poor, they can only passively bear potential losses. This contradicts investors' core need for fund flexibility, significantly weakening the market acceptance of this model.
Finally, the impact of emerging alternative models in the AI ​​era has further squeezed the market space for MAM/PAMM. With the deep application of AI technology in forex trading, new models such as intelligent trading systems and Expert Advisors (EAs) are gradually replacing the core functions of MAM/PAMM. AI trading systems can achieve fully automated trading through mature algorithms, eliminating the need for human intervention. They can also backtest trading strategies in real time and precisely control risk exposure, fundamentally avoiding the moral hazard that may exist with human trading. Emerging models such as social trading and copy trading allow investors to choose which traders to follow and monitor their behavior in real time, offering far greater flexibility and transparency than the traditional MAM/PAMM model.
In summary, while the MAM/PAMM mechanism offers certain advantages in terms of fund security by avoiding the fund holding stage, its inherent shortcomings in technical architecture, strict regulatory constraints, long-standing lack of market trust, severe imbalance in profit distribution, and the impact of emerging models in the AI ​​era make it unable to adapt to the overall development trend of the foreign exchange market. Even in the rapidly iterating AI era, it will be difficult to overcome these core bottlenecks and achieve market adoption.

In the two-way trading system of forex investment, forex brokers that have completed compliant registration in Hong Kong are not limited to a single betting or sell-side model in their choice of trading mode.

---

Instead, they flexibly adopt market makers (i.e., betting model), STP/ECN (i.e., sell-side model), or a hybrid model combining both, based on their own business structure characteristics, the specific types of their clientele, and the relevant regulatory requirements of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). Regardless of the model adopted, they must strictly comply with the compliance regulations and regulatory requirements of the Hong Kong SFC.
The Hong Kong SFC has not explicitly prohibited the betting model for brokers holding a Type 3 leveraged forex trading license. The core regulatory requirement is to achieve transparency in the trading model and establish a sound risk management mechanism. Under the market maker (DD/MM, also known as the counterparty trading model), the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) allows brokers to act as direct counterparties to their clients' transactions. This involves accepting clients' orders and internally hedging them, without releasing these orders to the external market. However, this requires brokers to clearly and fully disclose this trading model in their business plans, establish a management system that separates pricing and risk control functions, implement basic regulatory requirements such as full transaction record keeping, and strictly prohibit the manipulation of price points or malicious slippage to harm clients' legitimate trading rights. This type of trading model is typically suitable for retail clients with small to medium-sized capital, and brokers' core profit source is often the trading spread. In the STP/ECN (short-term transfer/electronic communication network) model, licensed brokers can use STP or ECN to transmit clients' orders directly to the interbank market, professional liquidity providers (such as large international financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley), or other compliant counterparties. The brokers themselves only act as intermediaries, and their profit comes from collecting transaction commissions or spreads. They do not have a direct betting relationship with their clients. This model is more often used for professional investors or for processing large transaction orders due to its high fairness and transparency. Furthermore, most compliant forex brokers in Hong Kong choose a hybrid model (DD+NDD) to conduct business. This means that small trading orders, high-frequency trading orders, or orders from clients facing losses are handled internally through hedging, while large trading orders and orders from profitable clients are routed to the external trading market. For brokers using this hybrid model, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) explicitly requires them to establish clear order classification and processing standards, clearly distinguishing the specific processing methods for different types of orders, and to fully disclose their conflict of interest management policies to clients.
A broker's choice of trading model is influenced by a combination of core factors. From the perspective of client type and trading size, small trading orders from retail clients (typically below $10,000) are often subject to the objective limitation of minimum trading size in the interbank market and are often included in the broker's internal hedging scope. However, orders from institutional clients or large trading orders (generally above $100,000) are more likely to be routed to the external trading market for execution. From a regulatory compliance perspective, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) stipulates that regardless of the trading model used by brokers, they must meet basic regulatory requirements such as segregated client funds, regular audits of trading records, and full disclosure of trading risks. Even with a counterparty model, potential conflicts between client trading profits and losses and the broker's own operational interests must be reasonably and effectively managed. Considering the broker's own business positioning, brokers focusing on institutional business tend to choose the STP/ECN model to ensure the professionalism and fairness of trading; while brokers primarily targeting retail clients may combine it with a market maker model to improve daily transaction processing efficiency and better meet the trading needs of retail clients.
It is important to clarify that the counterparty model used by compliant Hong Kong brokers is fundamentally different from offshore counterparty platforms without any regulatory qualifications. The former operates under the strict regulatory framework of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), requiring not only a HK$30 million registered capital requirement and the implementation of a segregated system for client funds and proprietary funds, but also regular compliance inspections and business audits by regulatory authorities. The latter, however, often resorts to malicious manipulation of trading data and unreasonable withdrawal restrictions to achieve illicit profits. Its operation is essentially that of an unregulated, illegal gambling platform, offering no protection whatsoever for clients' trading funds and legal rights.

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, forex brokers that have completed compliant registration in Japan are subject to strict constraints on their trading models by the Japanese Financial Services Agency (FSA). The counterparty trading model is subject to high-level regulatory restrictions.

---

The mainstream trading model in the industry is STP/ECN (i.e., sell-side trading). Limited internal hedging operations are only permitted in a very few specific business scenarios, and such operations must meet extremely high transparency requirements and stringent compliance standards imposed by regulators. This fundamentally distinguishes the trading models of compliant Japanese brokers from unregulated illegal counterparty trading platforms.
Japan's Financial Services Agency (FSA) has established clear and strict regulatory rules for forex brokers holding licenses for trading first-class financial instruments. The core regulatory direction is to prohibit malicious betting activities that profit from client losses, and to mandate that brokers prioritize market-based processing of client orders, meaning they must be prioritized for transmission to the interbank market or compliant liquidity providers. Regarding the market-based requirements for order execution, the FSA explicitly stipulates that brokers must fully disclose the specific execution path to the market and clients, and in the liquidity access stage, they must connect with at least two top-tier domestic liquidity providers, including financial institutions with strong capital and well-established pricing systems such as Mitsubishi UFJ Bank and Mizuho Bank, to ensure clients receive genuine and fair market quotes. In the Japanese forex market, leading brokers such as Rakuten Securities and SBI-FXTRADE have fully adopted the ECN trading model, directly connecting client orders to the interbank market, thus avoiding direct counterparty relationships with clients and fundamentally preventing conflicts of interest arising from betting. Regarding internal hedging regulations, if brokers have temporary internal hedging needs for small orders (such as retail orders below 1000 lots), they must accurately disclose core data such as the specific hedging ratio and detailed information about the counterparty in a special transaction report submitted to the Japanese Financial Services Agency (FSA) monthly. They are also subject to real-time dynamic audits by regulatory agencies and are strictly prohibited from illegally profiting from clients' trading losses through improper means such as manipulating slippage or delaying order execution.
From the perspective of the trading models of compliant forex brokers in Japan, their overall model choices exhibit a high degree of uniformity, all based on the core principle of market-oriented order execution. Specifically, they can be divided into two main types. Among these, the ECN/STP model is the mainstream choice in the industry. Leading trading platforms such as SBI-FXTRADE, Rakuten Securities, DMM-FX, and Okasan-Online have all established mature ECN (Electronic Communication Network) or STP (Straight Through Processing) trading architectures, directly transmitting clients' trading orders to the interbank trading market or professional liquidity pools. Their profit sources are limited to trading commissions or reasonable spreads, rather than profiting from client losses through betting against clients. Taking SBI-FXTRADE as an example, the platform not only connects to top domestic liquidity institutions such as Mitsubishi UFJ Bank, but also to the liquidity channels of large international financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase and Citibank, thereby ensuring the fairness and efficiency of order execution. Another type is limited internal hedging in niche scenarios. Some brokers conduct temporary internal hedging for retail clients' micro-orders (such as ultra-small orders of less than one lot). However, this operation must strictly adhere to the hedging ratio limits set by the Japanese Financial Services Agency. Typically, the volume of internally hedged orders cannot exceed 10% of the platform's total orders, and the hedging mechanism must be clearly disclosed to clients during the account opening process. It is important to emphasize that this type of internal hedging is not "betting" in the traditional sense. Its core purpose is to reduce the transaction costs of ultra-small orders, and the net position resulting from the hedging operation still needs to be promptly sold to the external trading market for market-based processing.
Compared to foreign exchange trading regulatory systems in other regions, Japan's regulatory rules exhibit more stringent characteristics. The core differences between Japan and Hong Kong's regulations are mainly reflected in three dimensions. Regarding restrictions on profit sources, Japan's Financial Services Agency (FSA) explicitly prohibits brokers from including clients' trading losses in their revenue, thus cutting off the profit chain of the betting model at its source. In contrast, Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) only requires brokers to fully disclose their trading models without imposing strict restrictions on their profit sources. Regarding liquidity access requirements, Japanese brokers are required to access liquidity channels from top-tier local banks such as Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group to ensure the suitability of their quotes for the local market. Hong Kong brokers, on the other hand, can flexibly choose offshore liquidity providers based on their business needs. In terms of leverage and risk management, Japan sets the leverage limit for forex trading at 25 times, further reducing the space for brokers to induce clients to overtrade through high leverage and then profit from client losses. Hong Kong's leverage limit for forex trading is as high as 200 times, with its risk management focus more on model disclosure and the establishment of risk control mechanisms.

Licensed forex platforms in Hong Kong do not use Hong Kong dollars and US dollars as the sole margin requirements; they are simply placed in a core position. Other currencies can only be used as collateral at a discount. This practice is not a hard and fast rule explicitly prohibited by regulations, but rather a practical choice resulting from the combined considerations of compliance, clearing, and risk control.

---

The SFC requires client funds to be segregated in their original currency. Since over 90% of global forex transactions are settled in US dollars, if Australian dollars, euros, and Swiss francs were all included in the direct margin requirements, brokers would have to open separate trust accounts for each currency at licensed banks in Hong Kong, revalue them against the US dollar at the end of each day, and replenish reserves for even slight exchange rate fluctuations. This is cumbersome and capital-intensive. Therefore, most platforms simply accept only Hong Kong dollars and US dollars, converting all other currencies into US dollars at a discount of 0.9 or even 0.85, thus satisfying segregation requirements while minimizing exchange rate discrepancies.
Hong Kong's local clearing system has also strengthened its dual-currency core. Brokers access interbank liquidity pools denominated in US dollars, with Hong Kong dollars used only for local retail deposits and withdrawals. Introducing Japanese yen and Canadian dollars would require separate cross-border channels, and small amounts of currency would have to go through multiple layers of exchange via agent banks, with spreads and processing times all passed on to the customer, resulting in a decreased trading experience. Furthermore, the SFC (Securities and Futures Commission) sets aside risk reserves separately for each currency; adding another currency adds another exposure, immediately complicating the capital adequacy ratio formula. Platforms simply reduce their channels to only Hong Kong dollars and US dollars, making risk weighting the easiest to calculate and financial statements the simplest.
European and American platforms can include US dollars, euros, British pounds, Japanese yen, Swiss francs, and Canadian dollars in their direct margin accounts because they have deep hedging tools on the back end. While both the FCA and ESMA require segregation, the FCA allows brokers to use overnight FX swaps, currency forwards, and cross-currency basis swaps to flatten multi-currency positions in milliseconds. The interbank pools in London and New York can clear these currencies in real time. The platform only needs to maintain a single integrated account with the clearinghouse; the system automatically converts the client's GBP margin into an equivalent USD exposure at a cost of less than 0.2 basis points, making the additional fees virtually imperceptible. Institutional clients already have multi-currency funding pools, allowing the platform to offer "currency-neutral" accounts. Clients can open USD 1 million notional contracts using Swiss francs, with automatic back-end swap hedging. No exchange rate gap is visible in the reports, and regulators approve of this model where the net exposure is zero after hedging.
Hong Kong platforms don't lack the technology to do this, but rather the economies of scale. Local retail trading volume is relatively dispersed. If they were to sign up for Tokyo Bank of Japan swap lines for a few thousandths of a yen margin, the fixed costs wouldn't be amortized. It's more efficient to have clients sell their yen and exchange it for USD, with the platform simply collecting the exchange rate spread. The result may appear on the surface to be a "Hong Kong dollar dominance over the US dollar," but in reality, it's a rational choice for small to medium-sized enterprises: two segregated accounts, one US dollar clearing channel, and one Hong Kong dollar reserve fund are sufficient to handle the SFC, banks, and auditors simultaneously, saving capital and reducing compliance friction.

In the two-way trading field of forex investment, forex brokers in Europe and the United States generally support all major currencies, such as the Euro, British Pound, and Japanese Yen, as direct margin for trading. The core advantages of this business model are not only reflected in reducing overall costs for traders, improving capital utilization efficiency, and adapting to diverse trading needs, but also bring multiple benefits to brokers themselves, such as expanding their customer market and optimizing their overall risk structure. This unique advantage is an inevitable result of the combined effect of a relaxed and flexible regulatory environment and a highly mature financial market system in these regions.

---

From the perspective of the core benefits for traders, the value of the multi-currency margin model is primarily reflected in its ability to significantly reduce the explicit and implicit costs of currency conversion. For traders whose principal is in non-US dollar currencies such as the Euro and British Pound, directly using the corresponding currency as margin can completely avoid the transaction fees and exchange rate losses incurred from multiple currency exchanges. Taking Eurozone traders participating in EUR/USD currency pair trading as an example, they can directly deposit margin in Euros without first converting Euros to USD. This saves them the 0.5%-1.5% exchange fees typically charged by banks or third-party payment institutions and avoids hidden losses due to real-time exchange rate fluctuations during the conversion process. In contrast, Hong Kong brokers' rules requiring the conversion of non-USD/HKD currencies at a discount further amplify these costs for traders, reducing the actual amount of funds available for trading. Secondly, this model significantly improves the efficiency and flexibility of capital utilization. The multi-currency margin system allows traders to flexibly allocate funds in different currencies within their accounts according to different currency pair trading strategies, without having to convert all funds into USD or HKD. For example, investors focusing on yen cross-currency pairs (such as GBP/JPY, EUR/JPY) can directly use yen as margin. Margin calculations at the time of opening positions will more closely align with the currency characteristics of the trading instrument, avoiding idle funds due to currency conversion and effectively reducing the risk of margin devaluation caused by cross-currency exchange rate fluctuations, ensuring the stable implementation of trading strategies. Furthermore, the multi-currency margin model is deeply adaptable to local capital characteristics and trading habits. Traders in different regions of Europe and America can directly use their local fiat currencies as margin, aligning with daily money management logic. For example, UK traders can use pounds to participate in GBP/USD trading, and Australian traders can use Australian dollars to conduct AUD/USD trading, eliminating the need for frequent and cumbersome cross-border currency conversion processes. This significantly improves the timeliness of deposits and withdrawals, while also preventing missed trading opportunities due to currency exchange delays, further optimizing the trading experience.
For brokers themselves, the multi-currency margin model also offers significant business empowerment value. Firstly, this model effectively expands the global customer base. Supporting all major currencies as margin, it fully meets the personalized funding needs of clients in different countries and regions, helping brokers attract traders from the Eurozone, the UK, Canada, Australia, and other parts of the world. Compared to Hong Kong brokers that only support USD/HKD, it offers a wider customer reach. Major forex brokers, supporting over ten major currencies as margin, have clients across major global financial markets, creating a significant scale advantage. Secondly, this model optimizes overall risk hedging efficiency. European and American brokers can leverage the multi-currency margin system to precisely hedge client trading positions in different currencies with corresponding liquidity providers, reducing the concentrated risk associated with a single USD currency. For example, for Euro margin positions, brokers can directly connect to interbank liquidity pools in the Eurozone, resulting in more timely and accurate hedging. Furthermore, professional tools such as forex forwards and currency swaps can efficiently manage exchange rate fluctuation risks associated with multiple currencies. This is a key underlying logic behind the local regulatory authorities' permission to adopt the multi-currency margin model. Thirdly, this model significantly enhances core market competitiveness. In the highly mature and competitive foreign exchange markets of Europe and the United States, supporting multi-currency margin has become one of the core competitive advantages for brokers. Leading brokers have successfully attracted professional institutional investors and high-frequency traders by offering flexible currency options. These clients have extremely high requirements for transaction costs and capital efficiency, and the multi-currency margin system can better match their sophisticated trading needs, thereby helping brokers establish a differentiated advantage in market competition.
From the perspective of comparison with Hong Kong forex brokers, the differences in margin currency rules lead to several business differences. In terms of trader costs, the multi-currency margin model of European and American brokers has no additional currency exchange fees and no discount losses on non-core currencies, maximizing the protection of traders' capital rights. In contrast, clients of Hong Kong brokers not only have to bear currency exchange fees, but also have to accept a certain percentage of discount for currencies other than USD/HKD, resulting in significantly higher actual transaction costs. In terms of capital flexibility, European and American brokers support the free allocation of multi-currency funds, adapting the margin currency to different trading strategies, resulting in extremely high flexibility and adaptability in fund usage. Hong Kong brokers, on the other hand, require funds to be uniformly converted to USD or HKD, with significant restrictions on fund allocation, easily leading to idle funds due to currency mismatch. Regarding client reach, European and American brokers, with their multi-currency margin systems, can reach clients in multiple regions globally, exhibiting a significantly diversified and global client base. Hong Kong brokers, however, primarily serve clients in Hong Kong and USD-settled areas, resulting in relatively limited client reach. In terms of risk hedging capabilities, European and American brokers can achieve diversified hedging of multi-currency positions, resulting in a more balanced overall risk distribution. Hong Kong brokers, however, rely on a single USD currency for hedging operations, leading to relatively concentrated risk and significant shortcomings in hedging flexibility and efficiency.

---

• 
• 

---

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

---