Are prop firms regulated by the AMF?

No, prop firms are not regulated by the Autorité des marchés financiers — and that is not a legal gap waiting to be filled, but a consequence of their activity matching none of the services subject to authorisation. A prop firm does not hold funds on behalf of clients, does not execute orders for third parties on a live account, and does not provide investment advice. It sells an evaluation service, then a profit-sharing contract. Neither of those two acts falls within the AMF’s remit.

The practical consequence is simple to state and heavy to carry: in a dispute you have no ombudsman, no deposit guarantee, and no authority to appeal to.

What the AMF actually supervises

The authority authorises and supervises investment services providers: those who receive and transmit orders, execute orders for third parties, manage portfolios, or hold financial instruments in custody.

A regulated broker, when you open an account with it, falls within that framework. It must segregate client funds from its own cash, belong to a compensation scheme, follow conduct rules, and account for itself.

None of that applies to a prop firm, because none of those situations arises. The account you trade is not opened in your name, the capital is not yours, and in almost every case the positions never reach the live market.

What you lose in practice

Three protections disappear, and it is better to name them precisely.

Segregation of funds. At a regulated broker, your money is legally distinct from the company’s. A bankruptcy does not carry it away. At a prop firm, the fees you pay go straight into the company’s cash, and your gains awaiting payment are an ordinary claim against it. If it disappears, you rank behind the preferential creditors.

The compensation scheme. There is no indemnity fund for prop firm traders. Nothing plays the role of a deposit guarantee scheme.

The route of recourse. A dispute with a regulated broker can be taken to the AMF ombudsman, free of charge. A dispute with a prop firm falls under ordinary contract law, before an often foreign court, with the costs and delays that implies.

What the firm can do that you do not expect

The absence of a supervised framework gives the company latitude that traders systematically underestimate.

It writes the risk rules alone, and generally reserves the right to change them. It alone measures your performance, since the price feed used for the calculation is its own. It alone decides whether a rule breach occurred, with no adversarial procedure. And it alone judges the moment when measured performance turns into a bank transfer.

That is not an accusation against the industry: most established firms honour their commitments. It is a description of a balance of power, and it is useful to know which way it tilts before paying.

Assessing a firm with no authorisation

Since no regulator does it for you, verification rests on clues that accumulate.

Age is the most robust. A company that has been paying its traders for six years has demonstrated something no commercial promise replaces. A firm launched eight months ago has demonstrated nothing, whatever its advertised terms.

Identifying the entity comes next. Company name, registration number, jurisdiction, named directors: that information must appear in the legal notices and be verifiable in a public register. Its absence is an answer in itself.

The payment history counts for more than its announced volume. A total payout figure displayed on a home page is verifiable by nobody. Regular payment evidence, spread over time and coming from identifiable traders, is worth more.

Rule stability finally. A firm that changes its withdrawal conditions and applies them to accounts already open is telling you how it will treat your case on the day your payout becomes inconvenient.

The reasoning to apply

Do not try to establish whether a prop firm is “authorised” — the question has no useful answer. Ask this one instead: if this company decides tomorrow not to pay me, what stops it?

The possible answers are few: its reputation, its business model if it genuinely rests on its traders’ performance, and the prospect of litigation it would rather avoid. That is not much, but it is measurable — and it is what our trust pillar weighs, the most heavily weighted in our score.