IC Markets posts client trading volumes of $1.016 trillion in November
There’s another member of the trillion dollar club.
Leading Australia based Retail FX and CFDs broker IC Markets has announced that it has recorded its highest ever monthly trading volume, following a surge in client trading activity across all asset classes in November.
According to IC Markets the record month is a result of its product diversification, growth into new markets and optimum trading conditions which led to clients taking advantage of high volatility in the markets.
The results follow last year’s unprecedented growth across the global retail trading industry, with IC Markets reporting $9.32 trillion in trading volume for the year. The trading volumes for November eclipsed the previous high of $1 trillion achieved in March this year, at $1.016 trillion for November 2021.
IC Markets CEO Andrew Budzinski commented,
“We are delighted to be bringing more traders across a growing number of markets a greater choice of trading instruments so they can diversify their portfolio whilst taking advantage of the optimum trading conditions.”
“Our traders are staying with us to take advantage of the highly competitive spreads we offer, and our ultra-fast order execution. We’ve worked hard to ensure we deliver a high-performance trading experience that attracts and rewards a loyal following of online traders.”
IC Markets recently signed deals to sponsor six leading Bundesliga clubs in Germany, as well as with six La Liga teams in Spain.
November 16, 2022 @ 5:32 pm
It is good to find a review or reviewer that scrutinises the various details about brokers with the seeming intent to bring out the facts thereof.
However, I noticed in spite of pointing fake sites of IC markets clones, the review focuses on its operations in Europe yet there is no authentic link that can traced your review to further make things more clearer.
Also, could it be that in EU, they are legit due to ovrsight of FCA but in other places outside that they may not have an unethical attitude giving room for these imposters to muddy the waters. In that would it not to fair and appropriate in reviewing to consider the entity in its entirety to avoid creating a loophole for it to operate as legit if in fact they were not so in other jurisdictions?
Thank you