FCA revisits CFD overnight charges, including fees on matched positions

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published follow-up observations on CFD charges and consumer value on 15 October. After a multi-firm review in November 2025, it asked 81 firms in May 2026 what they had changed. Most reported changes or plans to make them, but many were relatively minor. Only 12% said they had changed any charges. This is feedback on good and poor industry practice, not a new fee cap, a penalty against a named firm or a finding that every firm's charges are unfair.

The cost at issue: overnight and matched positions

The FCA remains particularly concerned about funding charges on positions held overnight. It found substantial variation between firms and underlying assets; some charges appeared high relative to base rates and peers. Mark-ups within funding charges remain largely opaque. Only a minority of firms added an annual percentage rate alongside the implied daily cost, which would make longer-term holding costs easier to compare.

Opposite-direction trades on the same underlying asset do not automatically cancel the cost of two open contracts. The FCA says most respondents charge overnight funding on matched or hedged positions. Many describe this as an administration charge, yet most apply the same full funding spread used for genuine directional exposure. It asks firms to reconsider the rates, how they apply them to matched positions and how they promote such trades. These are industry survey findings, not a judgment on any named broker's customer agreement.

Why traders and firms should pay attention

For traders, the dealing spread or commission is not the whole cost. The relevant contracting entity's schedule should show the instrument, long and short rates, charging time, weekend or holiday treatment and whether matched positions are charged separately. Opposing positions may offset some directional market risk while costs continue to accumulate for as long as both contracts remain open. The actual outcome depends on the product and contract terms.

For FCA-authorised CFD firms, the issue is not merely whether a rate appears somewhere in terms or a key information document. The regulator wants clearer, more prominent information earlier in the customer journey. Firms that encourage matched positions should present a balanced account of their benefits and costs and test whether the charges meet Consumer Duty price-and-value obligations. The FCA says it will continue monitoring and follow up with individual firms where necessary.

TraderVote's view

This follow-up shifts the practical question from whether a rate is disclosed to whether clients can understand the ongoing cost before trading and whether the charge is proportionate to the value received. Hedging is not synonymous with cost-free holding. An annualised comparison can convey the burden of a small-looking daily rate more clearly. The FCA has not named firms or published case findings in this document, nor set a uniform rate; it would be wrong to label a particular platform non-compliant on this evidence alone.

Sources: FCA, [Contracts for difference firms: good and poor practice](https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/contracts-difference-firms), published 15 October 2026; FCA, [Multi-firm review of contracts for difference providers’ provision of price and value](https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/contracts-difference-providers-provision-price-and-value), published 13 November 2025. Accessed 15 October 2026, America/Los_Angeles.

This article is not investment advice.