Is the Tide Turning for UK Brokerage?
After several years of CFD brokers exiting the UK, this month has seen two firms buck this trend.
At the end of last week, FinanceMagnates.comrevealed that Ultima Markets had secured FCA authorisation and is expected to start onboarding customers next year, with a company spokesperson stating it was confident it could provide value to UK traders.
Meanwhile, Moneta Markets confirmed on Monday that it has obtained a licence from the FCA through the acquisition of VIBHS Financial’s UK business.
So why do Moneta and Ultima reckon they can succeed in a market that has defied a number of their peers? One possible factor is that the CFD market in the UK appears to have matured significantly since the start of this decade.
While the number of individuals who placed at least one trade over the previous 12 months continues to fall, according to Investment Trends’ 2025 UK leverage trading report, there was a larger decline in the number of previously active traders who didn’t place a trade over the same period. Trader satisfaction with their broker was at a seven-year high.
Read more: UK CFD and FX Traders Fall to 167K, but Activity Hits Five-Year High
In February, OANDA added share CFDs on US and European-listed stocks to its contracts-for-difference range in the UK.
It is possible that CFD brokers also sense a more welcoming approach to crypto trading products from the FCA, which last week confirmed that, from October, firms would be able to give retail consumers access to crypto exchange-traded notes.
The regulator acknowledged that the evolution of the market means these products have become more mainstream and better understood, and says it is confident traders will get the information they need to assess whether the level of risk is right for them.
But while the FCA continues to establish a regulatory framework for crypto, it says it has no plans currently to lift its ban on regulated brokers offering retail access to crypto asset derivatives.
Coinbase Banks on Easier Access to Crypto
Just over five years after it established an official banking relationship with Coinbase, JP Morgan Chase has announced a partnership that will, from next year, enable customers looking to buy crypto to seamlessly link their bank accounts to the exchange.
Becoming the first platform to persuade a major global financial institution to allow its customers to fund crypto purchases directly from their bank account is a real coup for Coinbase and will further blur the lines between traditional and decentralised finance.
The user experience is a major selling point for any digital asset exchange, so establishing a direct line from bank to wallet with the prospect of lower transaction fees should attract plenty of new business.
The upshot is that Coinbase has just become the default US crypto on-ramp with Wall Street distribution, removing a major bottleneck while its rivals are left to work with third-party processors.
JP Morgan Chase has plenty to gain from this move too, as it seeks to steal a march on rivals such as Morgan Stanley, which is considering allowing customers to trade crypto through its investment brokerage and electronic trading platform.
It is also reportedly looking to validate digital assets as an acceptable form of collateral for customer lending – a development that could add billions of dollars to credit markets.
The Coinbase tie-in comes at a time when JP Morgan Chase is facing criticism from Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss, who has suggested that his negative response to the bank’s decision to charge fintech platforms looking to access customer banking data led to the suspension of Gemini’s onboarding.
The exchange was offboarded as part of ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’, a follow-up to a 2013 US regulatory initiative to stop financial institutions from serving businesses deemed illicit or high risk.
In a post on X, Winklevoss said, ‘This will bankrupt fintechs that help you link your bank accounts to crypto companies’ and described it as ‘the kind of egregious regulatory capture that kills innovation, hurts the American consumer, and is bad for America’.
JPMorgan and the banksters are trying to kill fintech and crypto companies. They want to take away your right to access your banking data for FREE via-third party apps like @Plaid and instead charge you and fintechs exorbitant fees to access YOUR DATA. This will bankrupt fintechs… pic.twitter.com/LpDVGXVrKq
— Tyler Winklevoss (@tyler) July 20, 2025
The Folly of Rushing to Judgement
When scandals come to light, it is human nature to seek punishment for those deemed responsible. This desire was amplified by the fact that fewer than 50 bankers served time for their role in the 2008 global financial crisis, of whom only one was based in the US, where the crisis originated.
So when allegations of manipulative behaviour relating to the London Inter-bank Offered Rate, or Libor , emerged in 2012, the authorities were keen to be seen to be cracking down on a practice that caused multiple financial assets to be mispriced.
Read more: FCA Issues Timeline to Cease LIBOR Benchmark
Despite banks being hit with penalties ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and widespread acknowledgement that senior management knew what they were doing, a total of nine traders were pursued by the Serious Fraud Office, with the highest profile – Tom Hayes, a former UBS and Citigroup trader – receiving a 14-year sentence for conspiracy to defraud.
Last month, Hayes and fellow defendant Carlo Palombo had their convictions overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court, in a ruling that will undoubtedly undermine the credibility of the UK when it comes to prosecuting cases relating to financial crime.
But this does not mean there was no wrongdoing. In the judgement, one of the Supreme Court judges noted that ‘there was ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to defraud’.
Reaction to the Supreme Court ruling reflects the divergence of opinion on the case. One financial services consultant described the practice of using wash trades to generate commission for an inter-dealer broker to reward them for publishing favourable expected rates as ‘horrific’, whereas another referred to the ‘Serious Farce Office’ and suggested that the Bank of England and the UK Treasury facilitated Libor collusion.
Who is right? I will defer to my mother, whose favourite saying was, ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’
Is the Tide Turning for UK Brokerage?
After several years of CFD brokers exiting the UK, this month has seen two firms buck this trend.
At the end of last week, FinanceMagnates.comrevealed that Ultima Markets had secured FCA authorisation and is expected to start onboarding customers next year, with a company spokesperson stating it was confident it could provide value to UK traders.
Meanwhile, Moneta Markets confirmed on Monday that it has obtained a licence from the FCA through the acquisition of VIBHS Financial’s UK business.
So why do Moneta and Ultima reckon they can succeed in a market that has defied a number of their peers? One possible factor is that the CFD market in the UK appears to have matured significantly since the start of this decade.
While the number of individuals who placed at least one trade over the previous 12 months continues to fall, according to Investment Trends’ 2025 UK leverage trading report, there was a larger decline in the number of previously active traders who didn’t place a trade over the same period. Trader satisfaction with their broker was at a seven-year high.
Read more: UK CFD and FX Traders Fall to 167K, but Activity Hits Five-Year High
In February, OANDA added share CFDs on US and European-listed stocks to its contracts-for-difference range in the UK.
It is possible that CFD brokers also sense a more welcoming approach to crypto trading products from the FCA, which last week confirmed that, from October, firms would be able to give retail consumers access to crypto exchange-traded notes.
The regulator acknowledged that the evolution of the market means these products have become more mainstream and better understood, and says it is confident traders will get the information they need to assess whether the level of risk is right for them.
But while the FCA continues to establish a regulatory framework for crypto, it says it has no plans currently to lift its ban on regulated brokers offering retail access to crypto asset derivatives.
Coinbase Banks on Easier Access to Crypto
Just over five years after it established an official banking relationship with Coinbase, JP Morgan Chase has announced a partnership that will, from next year, enable customers looking to buy crypto to seamlessly link their bank accounts to the exchange.
Becoming the first platform to persuade a major global financial institution to allow its customers to fund crypto purchases directly from their bank account is a real coup for Coinbase and will further blur the lines between traditional and decentralised finance.
The user experience is a major selling point for any digital asset exchange, so establishing a direct line from bank to wallet with the prospect of lower transaction fees should attract plenty of new business.
The upshot is that Coinbase has just become the default US crypto on-ramp with Wall Street distribution, removing a major bottleneck while its rivals are left to work with third-party processors.
JP Morgan Chase has plenty to gain from this move too, as it seeks to steal a march on rivals such as Morgan Stanley, which is considering allowing customers to trade crypto through its investment brokerage and electronic trading platform.
It is also reportedly looking to validate digital assets as an acceptable form of collateral for customer lending – a development that could add billions of dollars to credit markets.
The Coinbase tie-in comes at a time when JP Morgan Chase is facing criticism from Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss, who has suggested that his negative response to the bank’s decision to charge fintech platforms looking to access customer banking data led to the suspension of Gemini’s onboarding.
The exchange was offboarded as part of ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’, a follow-up to a 2013 US regulatory initiative to stop financial institutions from serving businesses deemed illicit or high risk.
In a post on X, Winklevoss said, ‘This will bankrupt fintechs that help you link your bank accounts to crypto companies’ and described it as ‘the kind of egregious regulatory capture that kills innovation, hurts the American consumer, and is bad for America’.
JPMorgan and the banksters are trying to kill fintech and crypto companies. They want to take away your right to access your banking data for FREE via-third party apps like @Plaid and instead charge you and fintechs exorbitant fees to access YOUR DATA. This will bankrupt fintechs… pic.twitter.com/LpDVGXVrKq
— Tyler Winklevoss (@tyler) July 20, 2025
The Folly of Rushing to Judgement
When scandals come to light, it is human nature to seek punishment for those deemed responsible. This desire was amplified by the fact that fewer than 50 bankers served time for their role in the 2008 global financial crisis, of whom only one was based in the US, where the crisis originated.
So when allegations of manipulative behaviour relating to the London Inter-bank Offered Rate, or Libor , emerged in 2012, the authorities were keen to be seen to be cracking down on a practice that caused multiple financial assets to be mispriced.
Read more: FCA Issues Timeline to Cease LIBOR Benchmark
Despite banks being hit with penalties ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and widespread acknowledgement that senior management knew what they were doing, a total of nine traders were pursued by the Serious Fraud Office, with the highest profile – Tom Hayes, a former UBS and Citigroup trader – receiving a 14-year sentence for conspiracy to defraud.
Last month, Hayes and fellow defendant Carlo Palombo had their convictions overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court, in a ruling that will undoubtedly undermine the credibility of the UK when it comes to prosecuting cases relating to financial crime.
But this does not mean there was no wrongdoing. In the judgement, one of the Supreme Court judges noted that ‘there was ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to defraud’.
Reaction to the Supreme Court ruling reflects the divergence of opinion on the case. One financial services consultant described the practice of using wash trades to generate commission for an inter-dealer broker to reward them for publishing favourable expected rates as ‘horrific’, whereas another referred to the ‘Serious Farce Office’ and suggested that the Bank of England and the UK Treasury facilitated Libor collusion.
Who is right? I will defer to my mother, whose favourite saying was, ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’
This post is originally published on FINANCEMAGNATES.
