
First of all, I would like to recognize the value
and tradition of prestigious publications and organizations that
have extended recognition to FX brokers in the past. There is
value in what they do.I don't know how representative is my view
on this, but when I hear of a new broker award I first look for
information on the survey methodology used. My mind invariably
wonders things like: what was the level of dispersion of the
results? how big was the sample pool? What biases were present in
the data acquisition process? How were the categories constructed
and the results analyzed? More often than not, I do not find
answers to most of my questions.
Why bother? I like to make up my mind about how reliable and representative the stated results were. I am a skeptic, have grown to be broker neutral, and believe I am not alone in wanting to find reliable broker information.
Why does any of this matter anyway? I've lost count of the number
of earnest traders that I have talked to since 2005. Some had
lost small fortunes and were looking for reliable broker
information. Others had more foresight and were doing their due
diligence before a major mistake was made.
My short answer to this last question is this: First, traders
have unique needs that are served better by some brokers that
specialize in those needs. Second, within the universe of brokers
that cater to a trader's needs and everything else held constant,
the trader should select the broker that consistently performs
better than others in key universal criteria.