TPFx: six account tiers, pricing conflicts, funding and complaint routes

TPFx is the brand of PT Trijaya Pratama Futures. The detailed account page is the basis for the following comparison; conflicting entries elsewhere on the same official site are identified below.[1][9]

The separate FX product page still advertises entry from USD 200. It does not identify the same tier as the USD 10 Standard Variable offer, so it cannot be used as a universal account-opening minimum. The exact account selected in the approved application controls the comparison.[5][1]

View full spreads & trading costs

A share CFD does not make the holder a shareholder. Product names also do not resolve contract size, tick value or expiry: the trading page’s instrument grids did not expose populated specification rows in the retrieved text. No oil multiplier or universal pip value is inferred here.[2][8]

These are competing published claims, not two measurements of the same realised spread. A dated tariff for the selected account is needed to settle them. Minimum spreads exclude commission, financing and execution slippage.[1][2]

The detailed matrix labels the other three tiers as swap-bearing, while the trading landing page broadly marks every tier as swap-free with an asterisk. Index and share-CFD pages also make no-swap claims without explaining their account scope. The public material does not establish one universal waiver or the charge after the five-day allowance.[1][2][7][8]

The percentage stop-out label alone does not establish the equity calculation, liquidation priority or execution price during a gap. Neither the low opening deposit nor the Zero ECN name proves a loss cap or a specific execution agency model.[1][2]

The current client instruction should identify the bank actually used for that transfer. A longer regulator list does not override the operational FAQ. Funds needed to support open positions may not be available for withdrawal even when the cash balance appears positive.[3][9]

TPFx’s complaint page describes supervision by all three authorities. This is not a substitute for checking the permission applying to a particular contract. Segregated accounts separate client funds operationally; they do not provide a verified per-client insurance payout or reimburse trading losses.[4][9]

Those are TPFx’s published routes. The relevant product still matters: Bank Indonesia’s transfer FAQ separately directs PUVA derivative enquiries and complaints to BICARA. Retain transaction records and correspondence; the complaint workflow does not promise a particular outcome.[4][12]

The reviewed pages do not define a copy-service disconnect rule or show that switching off an EA closes its positions. Any automated order authority and the treatment of open trades need to be established in the chosen service’s own terms.[2]

A signed, account-specific tariff is needed for commission side and lot basis, financing after any waiver, inactive-account charges, statement-export options and exact margin-liquidation mechanics. The conflicting official prices cannot support one reliable all-in cost calculation.[1][2][3]