Fees absorbed one dollar in six of Australian retail CFD losses as ASIC drove a 52-issuer rebuild

Australian retail clients who lost money on contracts for difference in the 2024 financial year recorded net losses of A$458.01 million, including A$73.29 million in fees. The fee component was 16.0 per cent of the total: almost exactly one dollar in every six lost. That ratio emerges from ASIC’s sector-wide dataset, not from a sample of a single broker or a marketing risk warning.[1][2]

The regulator’s review covered 52 licensed issuers between October 2024 and December 2025. It secured more than A$39 million for over 38,000 investors and prompted changes across target-market documents, websites, onboarding, client monitoring and transaction reporting. The scale of that intervention matters because it turns a familiar proposition—that CFDs are expensive and most retail users lose—into an operational audit of how an entire national industry designed, sold and supervised the product.[1][2]

The fee burden was material even before leverage is considered

ASIC counted 133,674 loss-making retail clients. Dividing the reported A$458.01 million net loss across that group gives about A$3,426 per losing client. Dividing A$73.29 million of fees by the same count gives about A$548. Those averages do not describe any particular account and they conceal a wide distribution of activity. They do, however, show that costs were not a rounding error inside the aggregate result.[1]

The report also counted 57,183 profitable retail clients, with aggregate profits of A$172.33 million after fees, and 4,529 clients whose result was effectively flat. Costs changed the sign of some outcomes: ASIC said fees caused 5 per cent of retail clients who were profitable before fees to finish with a net loss. Among active profitable clients who opened at least 50 positions a month, 19 per cent ended in loss after fees.[1]

That distinction separates two mechanisms. Market movement can produce a trading loss. Charges can deepen that loss or turn a small gross profit into a net deficit. A risk warning stating that a percentage of customers lose money does not explain how much of the final outcome came from price, spread, financing, commission or another fee. ASIC’s dataset begins to decompose the result.[1]

Opposing positions generated the largest remediation programme

The biggest identified refund arose from “margin discounting” on opposing long and short CFDs. Some issuers calculated required margin on the net notional exposure or only on the larger leg. That made a two-sided position appear less demanding in collateral terms. ASIC said the practice breached its product intervention order and could let customers build excessive gross leverage, incur higher overnight funding, lose margin-closeout protection in some circumstances and face a sudden margin jump when one leg was closed.[1]

Twenty-eight issuers refunded more than A$36 million for swap costs, spreads and other fees, plus interest, on affected positions. The figure means this one practice accounted for more than nine-tenths of the A$39 million-plus total remediation announced in the report. The regulator did not publish a firm-by-firm allocation, so the evidence cannot support naming an issuer as a major contributor or calculating an average refund for any particular broker.[1][2]

The mechanism is counter-intuitive. A long and a short position can offset the customer’s directional opportunity: gains on one leg are countered by losses on the other. Yet both contracts can continue to attract spreads or overnight funding. Lowering the margin required for the pair may encourage a larger gross position without creating a corresponding ability to profit from both legs together. ASIC’s intervention treated the resulting fees as remediable in the circumstances it identified.[1]

The report is careful not to say that every matched position is inherently improper. Customers can have legitimate reasons to maintain opposing trades, and brokers can incur real operational and funding costs. The regulatory problem was the combination of margin treatment, leverage protections and customer outcomes under Australia’s intervention order. That legal setting should not be exported automatically to another jurisdiction.[1]

A second refund exposed the cost of product design

ASIC separately examined an exotic CFD product resembling a barrier option. It had been sold between November 2020 and November 2024 to retail and wholesale clients. According to data supplied by the unnamed issuer, 72 per cent of retail clients lost money and costs cut into profits and aggravated losses. The issuer had already stopped offering the product, then refunded more than A$1.3 million to 250 retail clients after ASIC intervened.[1]

Two other issuers reported breaches of leverage limits and refunded more than A$1.3 million for losses, fees and costs, plus interest. These amounts should not be added casually to the A$36 million margin-discount figure and called evidence of a single failing. They concern different conduct and affected populations. Together, they show that remediation was driven by product structure, leverage controls and charging practices rather than by one isolated accounting error.[1]

Most issuers changed more than one part of the customer journey

The review’s remediation counts are unusually broad. Thirty-nine of 52 issuers changed their target-market determinations, equal to 75 per cent of the reviewed population. Forty-six, or 88.5 per cent, improved website content. Forty-four, or 84.6 per cent, improved onboarding questionnaires. Forty-two, or 80.8 per cent, introduced or materially strengthened ongoing monitoring. Forty-eight, or 92.3 per cent, changed transaction-reporting arrangements.[1][2]

Those percentages do not mean every change was equally serious. One firm could have corrected a limited wording defect while another rebuilt its onboarding. ASIC said one issuer amended almost 1,000 webpages, and it found more than 70 million erroneous OTC derivative reports across the review. The useful finding is the reach: weaknesses appeared at acquisition, product governance, account opening, post-sale monitoring and regulatory data submission.[1][2]

Website findings included presenting CFDs as though they were the underlying shares or commodities, overstating benefits, understating risks and using Australian regulation in marketing by offshore affiliates. On onboarding, ASIC found leading questions, self-certification, obvious answers, repeated attempts and failures to use financial information already collected for anti-money-laundering purposes. These are not merely disclosure defects. They influence who enters the product and how confidently a firm can say that customer is within its target market.[1]

Ongoing monitoring was another weak point. Most issuers relied heavily on the initial questionnaire and did little with subsequent trading outcomes. After intervention, firms introduced alerts for losses, deposits, withdrawals, margin close-outs and negative-balance events, sometimes comparing those results with income or savings stated at onboarding. That creates a feedback loop: the product’s real use can test whether the original target-market theory was accurate.[1]

The sector shrank, but the losses did not become trivial

ASIC’s data showed 119,300 quarterly active retail clients in the period it examined, down 76 per cent from the pre-intervention level of 515,000. The number of licensed issuers providing data had also fallen to 50 from 60 in 2021. A smaller market can still generate large aggregate losses, especially when activity is concentrated among frequent traders and a limited number of providers.[1]

Sixty-seven per cent of new retail clients had stopped trading by the end of the financial year. Acquisition remained heavily commercial: 45 per cent came from paid online advertising, 20 per cent from paid referrals and 27 per cent from existing clients, according to the report’s sector snapshot. Those channels make the quality of promotional content and affiliate oversight central to distribution, not peripheral marketing questions.[1]

The report also found that wholesale clients had worse aggregate outcomes: 70 per cent lost A$738 million, including A$63 million in fees, and retail-to-wholesale reclassification was concentrated among five issuers. That is a separate population with different protections. It nevertheless explains why ASIC began a targeted review of classification processes. Moving a client out of the retail category can change leverage limits and other safeguards without changing the person’s capacity to absorb loss.[1]

The unresolved issue is whether remediation becomes a durable control

A one-off refund repairs a defined past outcome. It does not prove that target markets, sales incentives, platform prompts and ongoing monitoring will remain effective when products or acquisition channels change. ASIC explicitly said compliance could not be “set and forget”. Its October 2026 consultation on extending and amending the CFD product intervention order makes the review part of a continuing policy decision ahead of the order’s scheduled May 2027 expiry.[1][3]

The report’s limitations should be preserved. It does not identify which 28 issuers made the A$36 million margin-discount refunds, which firm sold the exotic product or which two breached leverage limits. It does not provide account-level distributions from which medians or causal estimates can be calculated. The average loss and fee figures in this article are arithmetic summaries of published aggregates, not representative customer forecasts.[1]

The loss data separate prevalence from severity

The published client counts allow two different questions to be kept apart. First, how common was a losing outcome? Second, how severe were the aggregate losses and costs? A high percentage of losing clients does not by itself show the average amount lost, while a large aggregate loss can be concentrated among a smaller number of highly active accounts. ASIC supplied enough information to calculate broad averages, but not the distribution needed to identify medians, tails or the contribution of the most active traders.[1][2]

That limitation matters when interpreting the A$548 average fee across loss-making retail clients. Some customers may have paid very little and others many thousands of dollars through repeated spreads and overnight charges. The figure is useful as a sector-scale measure; it should not be turned into a typical bill or used to predict what a new customer will pay.[1]

Seventy million reporting errors were a market-infrastructure finding

The review’s transaction-reporting result belongs beside the consumer findings, not underneath them. ASIC said the work uncovered more than 70 million erroneous OTC derivative reports and that 48 of 52 issuers changed their reporting arrangements. Those reports feed regulatory oversight of positions, activity and risk. An error does not automatically mean a customer was charged incorrectly, but errors on that scale can impair the regulator’s picture of the market it is supervising.[1][2]

The same firm can therefore fail in two distinct directions: it can misunderstand whether a product reaches the right customer, and it can send the regulator an unreliable record of what was traded. Onboarding and target-market controls govern entry. Transaction reporting governs visibility after entry. ASIC’s review found remediation across both ends of that chain.[1]

The remediation totals should not be reverse-engineered into firm rankings

Because ASIC withheld the identities and firm-level amounts behind the largest refunds, it is impossible to rank issuers by liability or infer that a well-known broker paid a particular share. Dividing A$36 million by 28 issuers would produce a mathematical average, but it would disguise what may be a highly uneven distribution and could be falsely attached to an individual company. The defensible finding is sector-wide: a majority of reviewed issuers participated in the remediation.[1][2]

The anonymity also limits accountability from public records. Customers can see that the practice was widespread, but not whether their provider was among the 28 or how its calculation worked. That makes direct firm disclosure and individual remediation notices important evidence for any follow-up investigation. Until those records exist, the report supports analysis of the mechanism and scale, not accusation by association.[1][2]

What the records do establish is substantial. Fees consumed 16 per cent of reported retail net losses; charges reversed some profitable outcomes; more than half the sector refunded customers over opposing-position margin treatment; and at least three-quarters of reviewed issuers changed each of several core controls. The investigation is therefore not that Australians often lose on CFDs. It is that the regulator’s own industry reconstruction shows how product costs and distribution machinery helped determine who lost, how much, and whether the firm noticed.[1][2]

Report an error or submit an update