The development
ASIC announced in January 2026 that its review of 52 licensed CFD issuers had secured nearly A$40 million in refunds for more than 38,000 retail investors. It identified weaknesses in distribution, reporting and margin practices. More than half the sector had offered margin discounts on opposing positions that generated additional funding costs without directional profit potential from those offsetting trades.
Source: ASIC sector review announcement, January 20, 2026.
FOLITIC analysis: net exposure and gross costs differ
Consider equal long and short positions in the same underlying contract. Price movements may largely cancel, while each position can still attract charges. The result depends on the provider’s terms, but a low net price sensitivity does not make the arrangement free.
This is different from closing a position. Closing removes the open contractual exposure, while adding an opposite trade can leave two contracts and their associated administration in place. Investors need the actual account treatment, not an assumption based on the word hedge.
What to inspect in an account statement
Separate trading gains and losses from financing, spreads and other fees. Look at gross positions as well as net exposure. A statement can appear directionally neutral while costs continue to accumulate.
The refund announcement is also a historical regulatory result, not a promise that all trading losses will be reimbursed. It identifies specific industry practices and remediation. The useful lesson is to understand how the provider books offsetting transactions and to evaluate their complete economic effect before treating a margin concession as a benefit.
Photo: Historical photograph of Sydney at dusk in December 2008. Credit: Diliff via Wikimedia Commons. Image license: CC BY SA 3.0. Displayed with a responsive crop. This file photograph illustrates the subject or location and does not depict the reported transaction.
