WikiFX

Reply

Based on my experience as a trader, I place a strong emphasis on regulatory transparency and overall broker reliability before even considering specific trading costs. With MC900, several red flags immediately stand out to me. The broker is listed with an "Unverified" regulatory status—with suspicious license claims for both CYSEC (Cyprus) and FCA (UK)—yet no clear regulatory oversight is actually confirmed. To me, a score of 0.00 on the Regulatory Index reinforces the perception that oversight is lacking. This alone makes it challenging to accurately or confidently evaluate any costs, including those for index products like the US100. From my own process, I would look for detailed, independently verifiable information directly from the broker, particularly regarding spreads, commissions, swaps, and any extra fees. However, none of this appears to be openly disclosed, and the lack of transparent, up-to-date trading cost data poses a major risk for my capital. The general warning from the platform to "stay away" due to a low score is not something I take lightly. Even if MC900 suggests competitive index trading, the absence of trustworthy regulatory status means there’s no credible mechanism protecting clients from hidden fees or trade manipulation. In summary, given the high potential risk and limited transparency, I would not feel comfortable assessing or trusting the total trading costs for indices such as the US100 on MC900. For my trades, I prioritize brokers who clearly display all cost components and have verifiable regulation.