COUNTERPARTY FILE · last re-checked 2026-09
Global Prime — institutional liquidity provider
This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Licence, read literally
| Regulator | Licence number | Jurisdiction | Tier | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASIC | 385620 | Australia | tier-1 | open source ↗ |
| VFSC | 40256 (company number) | Vanuatu | 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
Contradictory founding years
Global Prime states both '14+ years' and 'for 16+ years' on different pages.
Source: Global Prime homepage
Segregated funds bank contradiction
Homepage claims funds are with tier-1 banks like HSBC, while the about-us page mentions NAB.
Source: Global Prime about-us page
The claims ledger
Claims specific enough to be falsified — and the ones that remain the venue's own measurement.
Testable claims
- Global Prime is a trading name of FMGP Trading Group Pty Ltd (ABN 74 146 086 017), licensed in Australia under AFSL No. 385620 — own regulation page (globalprime.com/company/regulation)
- Gleneagle Securities Pty Limited trading as Global Prime FX is a registered Vanuatu company (Company Number 40256) regulated by the VFSC — own regulation page
- X-Connected low latency servers within the NY4 datacentre execute trades — own homepage
Claims we cannot verify from outside
- "execution speeds from as low as 10ms" — own homepage measurement, no disclosed test boundary
- "0.0 spreads, $0 minimum deposit, no fees" — own marketing meta text
- "14+ years trusted" — own marketing figure (site elsewhere says 16+ years)
Perimeter and coverage
| Asset classes | Venues | Connectivity | Clients accepted | Explicitly refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FX spot, Crypto CFDs, Indices, Commodities | NY4 datacentre (New York) | Retail and wholesale traders (Global Prime) |
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.