Platforms · Software · Providers · Markets
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that just 12% of the 81 CFD firms it surveyed had changed charges after its November 2025 multi-firm review. The survey took place in May 2026, six months after that review. Most firms instead gave explanations for the rates they already charged.
The regulator's continuing concern is overnight financing: the cost of keeping a CFD position open. Some firms said they had changed, or intended to change, their calculations to account for the fact that clients receive no interest on margin while financing is applied to the position's full notional value. The FCA's earlier review also highlighted how use can make the charge large relative to a client's own funds.
The findings, published on 15 October, do not set a new rule or a compliance deadline. The FCA said it would follow up with firms individually where it had concerns. For broker operations, that leaves a practical test: whether the rate calculation, treatment of hedged positions and client-facing explanations agree across products and channels.
The figures behind funding costs
The figures below are illustrative assumptions from the examples, not the terms of any firm's offer.
| Measure | Figure |
|---|---|
| Survey sample and firms reporting charge changes | 81 CFD firms; 12% |
| Example position, margin and benchmark | £50,000; £2,500; 3.75% |
| Daily rates compared in the example | 0.0171% and 0.0199% a day |
| Matched index positions | £50,000 long and £50,000 short |
| Rates paid and received on the hedge | 7.25% paid on the long; 0.25% received on the short |
| Net hedge cost | £3,500 a year; about £863 over 90 nights |
How brokers and the FCA frame charges
For many CFDs, the funding calculation combines a currency benchmark with a broker's addition or deduction, then applies it to the position's notional. IG lists admin fees of 1% for FX and 3% for other asset classes on positions held beyond 10pm UK time. Its index calculation uses the contract count, contract value and price alongside the admin fee and SONIA, divided by 365.
For markets outside sterling, Singapore dollar and rand, IG uses a 360-day divisor; positions held over Friday night incur three days of funding. CMC Markets describes a similar sterling calculation using SONIA.
The treatment differs by product and direction. A long position generally pays the benchmark plus the broker's addition.
A short may receive the benchmark less that addition, but can become a charge if the addition exceeds the benchmark. CMC Markets says share CFD sells can incur a holding cost when the interbank rate is no higher than its add-on. For FX, it uses the pair's tom-next rate; IG and CMC Markets base commodity charges on the price difference between futures, with a fee added.
Matched long and short positions do not necessarily cancel out the financing. CMC Markets says its holding costs apply to both sides even when a client's positions are netted. The FCA found that most firms charged for matched positions, with many describing the cost as an administration charge.
In the example above, applying the same spread to each leg leaves a cost despite there being no net market exposure. The FCA is particularly concerned where firms encourage this arrangement by reducing or waiving margin, and wants clients to understand its trade-offs against closing a position.
The regulator's list of changes included paying interest on cash balances, lowering costs on hedged positions, reducing rates for product groups judged outliers against peers, and revising calculations to account for clients earning nothing on margin. The 12% includes firms with planned changes as well as those that had already acted. The FCA said changes were often about demonstrating compliance with the Consumer Duty rather than materially altering the offer.
The FCA recommends that firms explain their charges through dedicated fee pages, pop-ups and information on deal tickets, rather than relying only on terms and conditions and key information documents (KIDs). It also asked firms to consider annual-rate comparisons, and whether outlier rates represent fair value. The detailed survey findings and broker examples were reported by Finance Magnates.
The integration question
For technology, product and operations teams, the review puts the calculation and its explanation side by side. Do the instrument's funding parameters, benchmark, mark-up and day-count divisor produce the same result in the pricing engine, account statement and deal-ticket disclosure? Does the client-facing rate let a customer compare products on an annual basis, as the FCA recommends?
Teams should also check how the platform handles simultaneous long and short positions, including cases where margin is reduced or waived. Does the system charge both legs as configured, and can operations explain the net amount against the underlying rates? The FCA has not prescribed a migration or implementation deadline, so firms will need to establish whether their existing disclosures and calculations answer those questions before an individual follow-up.
