Manage Trading Risk More Effectively with HFM's Tools
Advanced risk management tools from HFM help traders monitor their positions and better manage their trading activity.
HFM Group, a regulated, award-winning online broker, HFM takes risk management seriously, providing cutting-edge technology, wide-ranging education, and advanced trading tools to clients worldwide. Their innovative solutions provide enhanced protection against unexpected market movements, offering features such as negative balance protection, customisable stop-loss and profit orders, and real-time risk analysis.
With a commitment to enhancing trading experiences, HFM's risk management tools like Autochartist and advanced insights integrate seamlessly with its award-winning trading platforms, ensuring clients have the necessary equipment to trade with confidence.
Forex risk management measures
HFM is a fully licensed, multi-regulated global broker with more than a decade of industry experience behind it. Offering a wide range of trading instruments, cutting-edge platforms, and dedicated client support, HFM continues to empower traders worldwide with competitive trading conditions and a commitment to transparency.
Client fund security has formed a key part of the broker's philosophy, alongside unmatched trading conditions and customer support. The company has put in place a variety of measures to ensure traders can negotiate the financial markets confidently, with a wide range of risk management tools at their disposal.
Market leading insurance
Without any additional cost to traders, HFM safeguards its liabilities against clients and other third parties with a Civil Liability insurance program. Guaranteed up to a limit of €5,000,000, it provides market-leading coverage against errors, omissions, negligence, fraud and various other risks that may lead to financial loss.
Accounts with major banks
In line with its standing as a leading, established international broker, HFM only uses the services of reputable, major global banks. The company can provide liquidity through these partner banks, which further underlines its strong reputation and credibility within the financial industry.
Strict regulatory supervision
As a multi-regulated firm, HFM is obliged to meet strict financial standards, including capital adequacy requirements. The broker must submit quarterly financial reports to the regulator and ensure that it maintains sufficient liquid capital to cover all client deposits, potential currency position fluctuations, and outstanding expenses.
Segregation of funds
Clients' funds are received into bank accounts separate from those used by the company. These funds are off the balance sheet and cannot be used to pay back creditors in the unlikely event of a default of the Company.
Negative balance protection
Volatility often occurs in the market. HFM's policy of negative balance protection means that even under highly volatile conditions when margin calls and stop outs do not function correctly, no client is responsible for paying back a negative balance.
Helpful trader tools
The Company continually identifies, assesses, and monitors each type of risk associated with its operations. This means assessing on a continuous basis the effectiveness of the policies, arrangements, and procedures in place which allow the company to easily be able to cover its financial needs and capital requirements at any time.
To help support traders in managing risk effectively, HFM provides a range of different tools, which are listed below.
Risk percentage calculator
: This tool allows traders to calculate their lot size by specifying the percentage of their balance they are prepared to risk. By inputting the opening and stop-loss prices, account currency, and currency pair, traders can determine the optimal position size to align with their risk tolerance.
Autochartist tool
: Autochartist automates the process of pattern recognition and provides real-time insights into potential trading opportunities. It includes volatility analysis and pattern quality indicators, assisting traders in evaluating the potential risk and reward associated with identified patterns.
Position size calculator
: This free tool enables traders to calculate the size of their positions in units and lots, facilitating accurate risk management. By determining the appropriate position size, traders can better control their exposure to market movements.
Premium trader tools
: HFM offers a selection of advanced trading tools, including the Trade Terminal for precision trading, Alarm Manager for automated alerts and actions, and the Correlation Matrix for assessing correlations between trading symbols. These tools provide traders with the resources needed to make informed decisions and manage risk effectively.
Aside from the broad array of tools outlined above, HFM values the importance of trader education when it comes to promoting risk management. Whether they are trading through the HFM App or on desktop devices, clients can review their trades at ease.
There are a whole host of different educational resources available to traders, consisting of online courses, risk management indicators, trading webinars, trading news, and market analysis. Each feature helps traders better understand market dynamics and develop effective risk management strategies as they navigate the financial markets.
To find out more about HFM's full catalogue of advanced risk management tools and educational resources, please click here.
About HFM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
28-05-2025
- IOL News
Understanding private assets: a guide for new investors
Explore the growing trend of private assets in investment portfolios, understand the benefits and risks, and learn how to navigate this evolving market as an individual investor. Image: File Over the next few years, individual investors are expected to increase their allocation to private markets, in some cases potentially approaching levels seen by various types of institutional investors. The compelling return history for private market investment is clearly a key motivator for these allocations. Schroders Capital research shows this is the main reason institutional investors enter private markets, and we have no reason to believe individual investors think any differently. Over the past five years, smaller clients have also been offered more options to invest in private markets thanks to product development, changing regulations, and technological advancements. New regulated fund structures such as the long-term asset fund (LTAF) in the UK, the European long-term investment fund (ELTIF) in Europe, and UCI Part II have been a game changer for accessing private markets, as well as for the increased use and further development of evergreen open-ended funds. While promoting access to private markets with these new structures, regulators around the world have also been tightening rules to protect smaller investors. For example, in the UK, clients must confirm they meet certain investment criteria, undergo a suitability review by their financial advisor, and have a 24-hour cooling-off period to reconsider their decisions. The South African regulator requires investors to meet the criteria of a qualified investor as per the definition in section 96(1)(a) of the South African Companies Act, No. 71 or 2008 as amended, and/or to have a minimum of R1 million to invest in terms of section 96(1)(b) of the South African Companies Act. Bain & Company estimates that by 2032, 30% of global assets under management could be allocated to alternatives, with a large chunk in private assets. While private investors currently allocate only up to 5% of their portfolios to private markets, we anticipate that the gap with institutional investors will narrow significantly over time, and private markets will become commonplace. The growing appeal of private markets Of course, returns aren't the only reason to use private assets, even if it's high on the client's agenda. Characteristics like stable income and genuine diversification, which have the potential to significantly enhance overall portfolio resilience, add to the appeal. It is also about the opportunity set. In public markets, there is an increasing concentration of stocks, with more than 30% of the S&P 500 dominated by just a handful of companies, leading to a narrower range of options. In contrast, the number of private companies, and those staying private for longer, continues to grow. Private companies in the US with revenues of $250 million or more now account for 86% of the total. Additionally, the number of public listings in the US has more than halved over the past 20 years compared to the period from 1980 to 1999, highlighting the shift towards private market opportunities (see chart). In South Africa, the last five years have seen an average of 24 companies delist from local stock exchanges on an annual basis, although 2024 showed a significant slowdown in this rate as only 11 companies exited the public market. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange is also highly concentrated, with a few large companies dominating the index. And it's not just a matter of numbers. Private companies tend to be more agile and innovative in their operations compared to public companies, and they can access opportunities in sectors where public companies have limited or no reach. For example, the new US tariff policies are likely to affect both public and private companies, particularly those vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. However, private companies tend to be more flexible in restructuring their supply chains to adapt to these changes, potentially avoiding cost increases. Nevertheless, companies heavily impacted may still face higher costs, affecting profitability, and therefore valuations and deals. Public markets continue to shrink, and companies are staying private for longer Number of public listings per annum in the US vs PE-backed. Image: Supplied. Once the decision to allocate to the asset class has been made, what is next? How do investors actually start their private assets journey, and what can they expect the journey to look like? Pacing is different One of the key differences with private asset investment is in the pacing of capital deployment. With no immediate secondary market to provide liquidity, allocations can and should be structured to, in a sense, create their own liquidity. Structured correctly, private asset allocations can become 'self-sustaining' over time, with distributions and income funding new investments to maintain a target allocation. What does that mean in practice? Many fund managers, or general partners (GPs), raise capital every year in what is known as 'vintages'. Each vintage represents a discrete fund that has an investment phase and a harvesting phase. The investment phase is when the capital is put to work, typically for about 3-5 years, depending on which part of the private assets market it's in, and what the market backdrop is like. The harvesting phase is when the invested assets are exited, generating capital that can be distributed back to investors. This is typically around 5-7 years after the investment is first made in what is known as an 'exit'. Private equity managers will use the term 'exits' because, while selling an asset is an option, it's only one of many options available. The routes to exit are varied but most commonly the company is either floated in an IPO (initial public offering), sold to another corporate buyer or private equity investor, or sold into a continuation vehicle. In private debt, the fund managers (there is often a cohort of lenders) will structure lending in such a way that the capital is returned at the end of a defined timeframe, having received the cashflows. These cashflows can then be used to refinance ('re-up' is a term often used) subsequent vintages. Private assets portfolio becomes self-financing after 5-7 years Private assets portfolio becomes self-financing after 5-7 years. Image: Supplied. In recent years, new exit routes have emerged, especially in the secondary market, with the continuation vehicles mentioned above. That's because these deals allow the GPs to provide a liquidity mechanism to their existing investors, the limited partners (LPs), while at the same time holding onto key assets for longer to maximise value. Continuation funds have evolved to become a common strategy for GPs to hold onto high-performing assets, or pools of assets, beyond the life of the original fund. Vintage years, consistent deployment, and the impact on returns A vintage year allocation approach has the benefit of mitigating the risk associated with market timing. Despite our optimism for the mid-to-long-term outlook for private assets, the near term is undoubtedly going to be challenging for many investors, and keeping up a steady investment pace may be difficult. While exit and fundraising activity seemed to have bottomed out in 2024 following a prolonged slowdown since 2022, risks and uncertainty in markets have increased sharply since the start of the year. As we pointed out above, this is mainly due to the uncertainties caused by the US government policy changes and the impacts these may have on economies and markets. In addition to broader concerns over performance, when markets fall, some investors face the 'denominator effect'. Private assets tend to correct less than other more liquid asset classes due to the way they are valued, so their relative weight in an investor's portfolio tends to increase when markets fall sharply. This can limit investors' ability to make new investments into the asset class and maintain a determined percentage allocation. Nevertheless, research suggests investors don't have to shy away from new investments in periods of crisis or recession. A recent analysis from Schroders Capital shows that private equity consistently outperformed listed markets during the largest market crises of the past 25 years. Despite challenges such as high interest rates, inflation, and economic volatility, private equity outperformed public markets and experienced smaller drawdowns, with distributions becoming less volatile over time. Meanwhile, recession years tend to yield vintages that perform exceptionally well. Structurally, funds can benefit from 'time diversification', where capital is deployed over several years, rather than all in one go. This allows funds raised in recession years to pick up assets at depressed values as the recession plays out. The assets can then pursue an exit later on, in the recovery phase, when valuations are rising. For example, our analysis shows that the average internal rate of return ('IRR') of private equity funds raised in a recession year has been higher than for funds raised in the years in the run-up to a recession, which, at the time, probably felt like much happier times. For private debt and real estate, there are similar effects. For infrastructure, the effects should also show a similar pattern; however, longer-term data is limited in this part of the asset class. Private equity vintage performance (average of median net IRRs) Private equity vintage performance (average of median net IRRs). Image: Supplied. Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Source: Preqin, Schroders Capital, 2022. There are 9,834 funds in the Preqin database. Only funds with vintage years after 1980 and 2017 are analysed. 220 funds that were out of distribution were excluded, reducing the number of funds in our universe to 3,400. Private equity-only investments, venture debt, and funds of fund strategies have been excluded. Pacing illustration for an investor Appropriate allocations to private assets will, of course, vary by client and will always be led by overall suitability. Important factors such as a client's overall income and expenditure, time horizon, investment understanding/experience, appetite for borrowing, and ability to tolerate illiquidity are all factors we consider when deciding on exposure to private assets. For the sake of illustration, though, let us assume all individual clients fall within one of four risk brackets: cautious, balanced, growth, and aggressive. What would the investment pacing look like for the private asset allocation? For a client on a growth risk mandate (this would mean a typical exposure to equities of between 50-80%) who has a good understanding of investments, a target allocation of 20% might be appropriate across private debt, private equity, and real estate. How private assets could fit within a portfolio How private assets could fit within a portfolio. Image: Supplied. It's important to note that the nature of investing in private assets means that allocations should be built up over time to ensure vintage diversification and that we explicitly recommend diversification by investment and vintage. While we want to diversify by asset class, we also suggest spreading investments across a range of structures. This usually depends on the investable assets and the investor's ability to accept illiquidity, noting that private investors could benefit from different structure types. For example, clients with large investable asset bases that have the ability to lock up their money for 10 years plus, can use the traditional routes, such as closed-ended structures. Otherwise, clients with lower minimum entry points and with an uncertain time horizon are able to use 'evergreen' open-ended funds: these funds do not have a pre-determined lifespan and can run in perpetuity, recycling investment proceeds and raising new capital as required. While clients investing in evergreen funds are able to access their money periodically, they need to understand these are still long-term commitments and that there are established limits and rules on when and how much they can withdraw. It's important that investors be educated and prepared for their allocation to be left untouched for an extended period. Private equity funds typically run for at least seven years, during which time the allocation will not be liquid. The realisation of the assets will also take several years, tapering down in the same way the allocation is gradually ramped up. This is why a complete, ongoing understanding of a client's overall financial position is crucial when considering building a private assets allocation. Private Assets - Investment risk: Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of an investment and the income from it may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Investors should only invest in private assets (and other illiquid and high-risk assets) if they are prepared and have the ability to sustain a total loss of their investment. No representation has been or can be made as to the future performance of these investments. Whilst investment in private assets can offer the potential of higher than average returns, it also involves a corresponding higher degree of risk and is only considered appropriate for sophisticated investors who can understand, evaluate, and afford to take that risk. Private Assets are more illiquid than other types of investments. Any secondary market tends to be very limited. Investors may well not be able to realise their investment before the relevant exit dates. * Krekis is a portfolio director at Cazenove Capital, part of the Schroders Group. PERSONAL FINANCE
IOL News
07-05-2025
- IOL News
DRDGold reports increased revenues as gold prices soar despite production dip
DRDGold said that as a result of the reduction in gold production, cash operating costs per kilogram of gold sold increased by 10% from the previous quarter to R964 235/kg. Image: Supplied Tawanda Karombo A 10% surge in average gold price boosted DRDGold's revenues for the quarter ending 31 March by 4% despite a dip in gold produced and sold during the period. Gold prices for the quarter averaged R1 685 760 per kilogram, representing a 10% surge compared to the previous quarter ended December 2024. Revenue for the quarter subsequently firmed up by 4% compared to the previous quarter to about R1.8 billion amid gold sold for the period declining by 169kg to 1 109kg. Adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (Ebitda) decreased by 2% from the previous quarter to R761.7 million. 'Gold sold and produced decreased by 13% and 12% respectively, due to a 5% decrease in tonnage throughput and a 7% decrease in yield to 0.181g/t,' said DRDGold on Wednesday. 'Tonnages decreased mainly due to unprecedented wet weather conditions, which inhibited access to certain sites and consequently impacted the desired blend of reclamation material.' The wet weather conditions experienced for the period also affected average yields achieved for the period. Yields for the quarter to end March 31 fell by 7% to 0.181g/t. DRDGold, however, said cash operating costs remained under control, decreasing to R1 044.2 million, leaving it with cash and cash equivalents of R950.5m as at the end of the reporting period. It said that as a result of the reduction in gold production, cash operating costs per kilogram of gold sold increased by 10% from the previous quarter to R964 235/kg. Cash operating costs per tonne subsequently increased by 5% to R175/t as a result of the decrease in ore milled quarter on quarter. All-in sustaining costs per kilogram for the period amounted to R1 074 493/kg, increasing by 8% quarter-on-quarter mainly due to the decrease in gold production and sustaining capital expenditure. DRDGold paid an interim cash dividend of R258.7m for the six months ended 31 December 2024 during the quarter period under review. It said cash generated during the current quarter will be applied towards the company's extended capital expenditure programme. 'This coupled with the recent surge in the gold price and barring any unforeseen events, places the Company in a favourable position to consider declaring a final dividend in August 2025,' it said. However, DRDGold has had to review downwards its production targets for the year to June 2025 despite indicating in January that it remained on track to achieve the production guidance for the financial year ending 30 June 2025 of between 155 000 ounces and 165 000 ounces. 'Due to the decrease in tonnages and decrease in yield that has been observed during the quarter ended 31 March 2025, the company may fall marginally short of its production guidance,' said DRDGold. 'As a result of the expected decrease in gold production, the company may exceed the revised cash operating unit cost guidance of R870 000/kg as published in the HY1 FY2025.' Despite this, DRDGold said it continued to explore further renewable energy initiatives in line with its commitment to sustainability as well as investing in capital infrastructure developments that underscore its throughput and output targets under its Vision 2028 strategy. For the half year period to December 2024, interim headline earnings in DRDGold grew 65% to R970.1m, equating to 112.6 cents in headline earnings per share. BUSINESS REPORT
IOL News
06-05-2025
- IOL News
Directors' personal liability for unpaid pension contributions: what employers need to know
In today's challenging economic climate, many companies face financial distress and even insolvency. However, recent legal developments make it clear that financial hardship is no excuse for failing to meet statutory obligations, particularly the obligation to pay over retirement fund contributions deducted from employees' salaries. This was the view of the Western Cape Division High Court in Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd and Others (1633/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 8 (16 January 2025), which confirmed that financial distress cannot shield employers from the consequences of non-compliance. This case underscores the legal duty of employers to comply with retirement fund obligations, and it highlights the potential for directors to be held personally liable for non-compliance. Legal framework The Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (the PFA) aims to protect the retirement savings and financial security of members by ensuring that contributions are properly deducted, managed, and remitted to the relevant fund. It sets out clear employer obligations, including the timely and full payment of contributions, and holds directors personally liable in cases of non-compliance. This reinforces trust in the retirement system and ensures that employee benefits are protected, regardless of an employer's financial challenges. Section 13A of the PFA plays a critical role in ensuring compliance. Section 13A(1) requires employers to pay both employee and employer contributions in full and on time. It also obliges the principal officer of the fund to report instances of non-payment to the board. Where an employer fails to comply, directors may be held personally liable. Accordingly, section 13A of the PFA and its subsections provide clear guidance on the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of effective compliance in respect of pension fund contributions. Furthermore, the section creates a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that financial distress cannot be used as a justification for withholding retirement fund contributions. Case background In brief, the facts of this case are that the Engineering Industries Pension Fund (the Fund) sought to recover outstanding pension and provident fund contributions from Installair (Pty) Ltd (the Company) for the period May 2020 to July 2020. In addition, the Fund sought to hold the Company's directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions. The Fund relied on the provisions of: section 13A(1), which mandates employers to pay both employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund in full and on time; section 13A(7) which provides for the personal liability of individuals responsible for ensuring the employer's compliance with its obligations; section 13A(8), which imposes personal liability on directors who are regularly involved in the management of the employer's financial affairs; and section 13A(9), which requires retirement funds to notify employers in writing of individuals who may be held personally liable, read with Regulation 33 (promulgated under the PFA but since repealed). At the time of the application, the Company was in liquidation, and no relief was sought against it. Instead, the Fund pursued relief against the Company's directors. The directors acknowledged that during the relevant period, the Company had deducted pension and provident fund contributions from employees' salaries but failed to remit them to the Fund. Instead, the amounts deducted were used to subsidise employee salaries, due to the Company's financial distress. The directors argued that the failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond their control and contended that they had not acted recklessly or negligently. One director also claimed that section 13A(8) of the PFA should not apply to her, as she was not involved in the financial affairs of the Company. The directors further argued that liability under section 13(8) arises only where directors are unable to meet statutory obligations due to circumstances within their control and where there has been reckless or negligent conduct, which they denied. The Court found that the directors were actively involved in managing the Company's financial affairs and had clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations under the PFA. The defences advanced were described as "far-fetched" and "untenable" and were summarily rejected. The Court accordingly held the directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions, ordering them to pay the outstanding amounts, together with accrued interest. The Court also dismissed the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified the employer's failure to remit contributions. Notably, the period in question (January to March 2020) preceded the national lockdown, which was only imposed on 26 March 2020. As the Company was fully operational during this time, the pandemic could not be used as an excuse for non-compliance. With no valid defence presented, the Court held the directors liable for the outstanding pension contributions. The Court also emphasised that a failure to issue an order in favour of vulnerable groups would constitute a dereliction of its constitutional duty. The Court noted that the rise in withdrawal claims under the two-pot retirement system has highlighted persistent non-compliance with pension contribution obligations, a trend that threatens the financial security of retirees. This case serves as a strong reminder that enforcement of pension fund compliance is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to protect employee's long-term financial interests. Obiter findings of the Court In Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd supra, prior to delivering its findings on the directors' liability, the Western Cape High Court highlighted the inherent challenges introduced by the two-pot retirement system and the practical implications of employers failing to remit pension contributions. The Court noted that such non-compliance has "cast a long shadow over this approach". The surge in withdrawal claims under the two-pot system has not only exposed serious gaps in employer compliance but also demonstrated that retirees, and those anticipating access to their retirement benefits ultimately bear the brunt of employer default. The 'two pot impact' in this context refers to the dual consequences of non-compliance with pension fund contribution obligations. Firstly, when employers fail to remit the deducted contributions, the intended 'pot' of funds meant to safeguard employees' future financial security is compromised. This undermines retirement savings, reduces expected benefits, and erodes trust in the pension system. Secondly, the case reinforces that directors who are actively involved in a company's financial affairs cannot rely on financial distress as a defence. The law imposes personal liability for non-remittance of contributions, holding directors directly accountable, exposing them to financial, reputational, and legal consequences. Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd is not the only case in which the Courts have taken a firm view on unpaid retirement fund contributions. In Mafoko Security Patrols Pty Ltd v Kheledi and Others (2023/036840; 2023/057409; 2023/085922; 2023/086107) [2025] ZAGPJHC 252 (7 March 2025), where the employer blatantly ignored the Pension Fund Adjudicator's determinations to pay outstanding pension contributions, the Court upheld the Adjudicator's orders, confirming that the workers were entitled to the unpaid contributions and awarding costs. Furthermore, in National Fund for Municipal Workers v Tswaing Local Municipality & Another [PFA25/2020] (19 August 2020), the Financial Services Tribunal found that while section 13A of the PFA does provide for personal liability where contributions are unpaid, this liability is not primary, the employer remains primarily liable for the outstanding contributions. Key takeaways for employers and retirement funds In conclusion, employers, and particularly retirement funds, are urged to implement robust financial controls and regularly review compliance policies to ensure that all pension contributions are paid promptly and accurately, in accordance with the PFA and the rules of the relevant fund. This will go a long way in shielding directors and companies from severe legal penalties and reputational harm. It bears emphasising that even in the face of financial difficulty, diverting retirement fund contributions for other uses is strictly prohibited. Directors cannot rely on financial distress as a defence to escape personal liability for unpaid contributions. These cases underscore a crucial legal principle: employers cannot avoid their pension obligations through delay tactics or legal posturing. The courts have made it clear that accountability in fulfilling statutory duties is non-negotiable. Companies that ignore these obligations do so at their peril. * Van Vuuren is a partner and Tshshonga is a trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel. PERSONAL FINANCE
