COUNTERPARTY FILE · last re-checked 2026-09
Finalto — institutional liquidity provider
Finalto Financial Services Limited operates under multiple licenses but lacks certain disclosed information.
Licence, read literally
| Regulator | Licence number | Jurisdiction | Tier | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCA | 481853 | UK | tier-1 | open source ↗ |
| CySEC | 264/15 | Cyprus | tier-2 | open source ↗ |
| ASIC | 424008 | Australia | tier-1 | open source ↗ |
| MAS | not verified | Singapore | tier-1 | open source ↗ |
| BVI FSC | SIBA/L/14/1067 | British Virgin Islands | tier-3 | open source ↗ |
Tier classification follows the same scale as the retail register: tier-2 means real supervision and client-money segregation, without an investor compensation scheme — never misread it as tier-1 protection.
Residuals a counterparty carries
Unpublished MAS licence number
Finalto's MAS licence number is not published on their official page.
Source: own page
Firm age not disclosed
The founding date of Finalto Financial Services Limited is not stated on their website.
Source: own about-us page
The claims ledger
Claims specific enough to be falsified — and the ones that remain the venue's own measurement.
Testable claims
- Finalto Financial Services Limited is regulated by the FCA (UK) under licence number 481853 — own about-us page
- Finalto EU Ltd is regulated by CySEC under licence 264/15 (company HE332334, Nicosia) — own about-us page
- Finalto (Australia) Pty Ltd is ASIC-licensed under licence no. 424008 (ACN 158 641 064) — own about-us page
- Three data centres: New York, London and Singapore (own liquidity page)
Claims we cannot verify from outside
- "Direct Tier-1 bank connectivity" and "ultra-low latency" — own liquidity-page marketing without disclosed metrics
Perimeter and coverage
| Asset classes | Venues | Connectivity | Clients accepted | Explicitly refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FX, CFDs, Cryptocurrencies, Commodities, Indices | New York, London, Singapore | FIX API | Brokers, Hedge funds, Institutional clients |
A firm that publishes its own negative space — who it refuses, where it is not licensed — is materially easier to diligence than one that doesn't. The refusal list is treated here as disclosure, not as a defect.