WikiFX

Reply

As an experienced trader, when I review a broker, clear information about fees—especially inactivity fees—is something I pay careful attention to, because unexpected charges can impact long-term trading strategies and capital management. With First Shanghai, I found that the available materials did not specify details regarding inactivity fees. The lack of explicit transparency on this point means I cannot confidently advise whether or when such fees would be charged. In my experience, this level of opacity requires careful consideration for any trader who is not planning to be constantly active in the market. Given that First Shanghai is regulated by Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), this does help mitigate some concerns regarding hidden or excessive charges, as regulatory oversight generally enforces a degree of operational transparency and investor protection. However, regulatory approval does not guarantee the absence of inactivity fees, merely that there are frameworks brokers must follow. For me, before opening an account with a broker that does not clearly outline all possible charges in advance, I would always recommend directly contacting their support staff or reviewing the full client agreement. This approach helps avoid unwelcome surprises, especially if my trading or investing style includes periods of reduced activity. Ultimately, because I was unable to find official confirmation of inactivity fees or their conditions from First Shanghai’s public information, I would approach this broker cautiously and seek direct clarification before proceeding.