ASIC Sets Retail CFD Levy 23% Lower for 2025-26 as Total Industry Bill Climbs to A$400 Million

A Narrowing Cost Pool Amid Expanding Enforcement

The allocated cost pool for retail OTC derivative issuers contracted to A$9.32 million from A$12.11 million, while the number of firms in the subsector held roughly steady at approximately 73. The market infrastructure and intermediaries group — which houses brokers, dealers, and exchange operators — recorded the smallest cost increase among ASIC's sectors, edging up just 1.9% to A$68.63 million. Adjacent categories moved in tandem: the per-staff levy on OTC traders fell to A$4,150 from A$5,351, and securities dealers now face A$31.13 per million dollars of annual turnover, down from A$38.24.

These figures, however, represent planning estimates. ASIC will publish final levies in December 2026 and invoice regulated entities between January and March 2027. The gap between estimate and final assessment can be material — a point brokers neglect at their peril.

The Enforcement Teeth Remain Sharp

The lower levy coexists with continued enforcement pressure on the retail CFD space. ASIC has directed seven brokers — including CMC Markets, IG, and Pepperstone — to return a combined A$4.3 million to retail clients over leverage breaches. This is not a sector the regulator is easing away from; it is a sector where ASIC is extracting compliance through both fiscal instruments and direct intervention.

The regulatory posture becomes clearer when viewed alongside the leverage-cap regime. ASIC has maintained retail leverage caps since 2021 and extended them for another five years, keeping Australia among the stricter jurisdictions globally. At least one comparative assessment has noted the Australian regulator overshot the European Union's own CFD intervention measures — a jurisdictional arbitrage dynamic that shapes where retail brokers choose to domicile and how copy-trading platforms structure their offerings across borders.

The licence cancellation of broker AIMS after it failed to remit over a year of industry funding charges serves as a concrete precedent: the levy is not merely a cost-of-doing-business line item. Non-compliance with the funding mechanism itself carries existential licence risk.

What Copy-Trading Operators Should Monitor

For platform operators and signal providers with Australian retail clients, two near-term obligations warrant attention. First, ASIC flagged new derivative reporting requirements that brokers must satisfy alongside the annual levy charge — the specifics of which will determine additional compliance overhead. Second, the December 2026 finalisation of levies could shift the number meaningfully, particularly if ASIC's actual expenditure diverges from the current estimate.

The broader takeaway for anyone running or selecting a copy-trading network with ASIC-regulated counterparties: Australia's supervisory framework is not softening. The per-firm levy declined because the cost pool shrank relative to peer sectors — not because ASIC's appetite for enforcement has diminished. When evaluating broker counterparty risk in this jurisdiction, the leverage caps, the reporting obligations, and the demonstrated willingness to claw back client funds remain the operative variables. The levy figure itself is secondary.