Do Banks Trade Binary Options

I. Executive Summary

Regulated banking institutions generally do not engage in the proprietary trading of binary options, particularly the types commonly associated with widespread retail speculation and fraud. A confluence of factors, including stringent regulatory prohibitions like the Volcker Rule in the United States, outright bans on the sale of these products to retail clients in the European Union and the United Kingdom, and the significant inherent risks and severe reputational damage associated with the product, renders such activities largely untenable for banks operating within established financial systems.

Binary options are fundamentally high-risk, “all-or-nothing” contracts, structurally distinct from traditional options. Their market, especially outside the limited sphere of regulated exchanges, is notoriously plagued by fraudulent activities, including deceptive marketing, refusal to pay out winnings, identity theft, and manipulation of trading platforms.¹ This has led major regulatory bodies, such as the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), to implement comprehensive bans on their sale to retail clients.⁵ In the US, while not entirely banned, the legal trading of binary options is strictly confined to designated, regulated exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).¹

Bank-specific regulations further curtail potential involvement. The Volcker Rule, a key component of the US Dodd-Frank Act, explicitly prohibits banks from engaging in speculative proprietary trading using their own capital, directly targeting the kind of short-term, high-risk betting characteristic of binary options.⁹ While banks are permitted to engage in activities like market-making and hedging under specific conditions ⁹, the unique structure and troubled market environment of binary options make them largely unsuitable for these functions within a prudent banking context.

Consequently, any potential involvement by regulated banks appears minimal and confined to the periphery. This might include activities related to standardized, exchange-traded products (such as event futures offered on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ¹³) or ancillary services like clearing for regulated venues.¹⁵ Such activities are fundamentally distinct from the speculative trading prevalent in the unregulated, often fraudulent, segments of the binary options market. Enforcement actions related to binary options overwhelmingly target these illicit platforms and associated individuals, with a conspicuous absence of cases against major banks for trading these instruments.¹⁶

related posts : Best Binary OptionS Brokers (in 2025)

II. Binary Options Explained: Structure, Risks, and Market Perception

A. Defining Binary Options

Binary options represent a unique category of financial instruments predicated on a simple “yes or no” proposition.²⁰ The core concept involves a wager on whether the price of an underlying asset (such as a stock, currency pair, commodity, or index) will be above or below a specific price (the strike price) at a predetermined expiration time, or whether a particular event will occur.² The outcome is binary: if the trader’s prediction is correct (the option expires “in the money”), they receive a predetermined, fixed payout; if the prediction is incorrect (the option expires “out of the money”), the trader typically loses their entire initial investment or stake.¹ This structure has led to alternative names such as “all-or-nothing options,” “digital options,” or “fixed-return options” (FROs).¹

The trading mechanism involves selecting an underlying asset, choosing an expiration time (which can range from minutes to hours, days, or weeks), specifying the investment amount (or “premium”), and predicting the direction of price movement relative to the strike price.²⁰ Unlike traditional options, binary options typically exercise automatically at expiration. The resulting gain or loss is directly credited or debited to the trader’s account without any further decision required from the holder regarding exercise.¹

This apparent simplicity, characterized by a clear upfront understanding of potential profit or loss and fixed expiration times, is often highlighted as a key advantage, particularly for novice traders.¹³ The accessibility of these instruments has been significantly amplified by the proliferation of internet-based trading platforms, allowing individuals to speculate on market movements with relatively low entry costs.¹ However, this perceived simplicity is deceptive. It masks significant structural risks and has made the product a fertile ground for fraudulent marketing schemes that prey on less sophisticated investors, distinguishing binary options sharply from the complex, yet more transparently priced and regulated, derivatives typically handled by established financial institutions.

B. Comparison: Binary vs. Traditional Vanilla Options

Understanding the fundamental differences between binary options and traditional “vanilla” options (standard American or European style puts and calls) is crucial for assessing why banks might engage with one but largely avoid the other.

A primary distinction lies in the potential for ownership of the underlying asset. Vanilla options grant the holder the right (but not the obligation) to buy or sell the underlying asset at the strike price, potentially leading to ownership if exercised.²¹ Binary options, conversely, offer no such possibility; they are purely contracts based on price movement or event outcomes, without conferring any rights related to the underlying asset itself.¹

The risk and reward profiles also differ significantly. Binary options feature a fixed, predetermined maximum payout if successful and a fixed maximum loss (usually the entire premium paid) if unsuccessful.¹³ The magnitude of the underlying asset’s price movement beyond the strike price is irrelevant to the payout. In contrast, while the risk for a buyer of a vanilla option is also limited to the premium paid, the potential profit is theoretically unlimited (for calls) or substantial (for puts), varying directly with how far the underlying asset’s price moves favorably beyond the strike price.²¹

Regulation represents another critical divergence. Vanilla options predominantly trade on highly regulated exchanges (like the CBOE in the US) with standardized contract terms, clearinghouse guarantees, and robust oversight mechanisms designed to ensure market integrity and protect participants.²¹ While some binary options are listed on regulated US exchanges (like Nadex and CME’s event futures) ¹³, a vast portion of the global binary options market operates through online platforms that are unregulated, often based offshore, and frequently associated with fraudulent activities.¹

Table 1: Binary Options vs. Traditional Vanilla Options

Feature	Binary Options	Traditional Vanilla Options
Payout Structure	Fixed amount if “in the money”, zero (or minimal return) if “out of the money”	Profit/loss varies with underlying price movement beyond strike price
Risk Profile (Buyer)	Fixed, limited to premium paid	Fixed, limited to premium paid
Reward Profile (Buyer)	Fixed, predetermined amount	Variable, potentially unlimited (calls) or substantial (puts)
Underlying Asset Rights	None; purely a wager on price/event outcome	Right (not obligation) to buy/sell underlying asset; potential ownership
Exercise	Automatic at expiration	Holder decides whether/when to exercise (American) or at expiration (European)
Complexity	Marketed as simple; payout calculation is straightforward	More complex pricing (depends on underlying price, strike, time, volatility)
Regulation	Often traded on unregulated platforms; legal US trading limited to exchanges	Predominantly traded on regulated exchanges (e.g., CBOE)
Typical Market	Historically dominated by retail speculation, often via online platforms	Active participation by both retail and institutional investors (hedging, speculation)
Primary Use	Short-term directional speculation, event betting	Hedging, speculation, income generation, leveraging positions

(Source: Compiled from ¹)

The structural characteristics of binary options—specifically their fixed, discontinuous payout and lack of connection to underlying asset ownership—make them poorly suited for the sophisticated hedging and market-making strategies commonly employed by banks. Traditional vanilla options, with their continuous payoff profiles, allow for delta-hedging and more nuanced risk management techniques. Binary options, by contrast, offer limited utility beyond simple directional bets or wagers on discrete events, restricting their legitimate application within an institutional context.

C. Market Perception and Inherent Risks

The prevailing perception of binary options within the financial community and among regulators is overwhelmingly negative, largely due to their inherent risks and the pervasive fraud associated with the market. They are frequently characterized as a form of gambling rather than a legitimate investment strategy.² This view stems from the “all-or-nothing” payout structure, the often short-term nature of the contracts, and the fact that many brokers have an edge over the investor, leading to a negative cumulative payout expectation for traders.²

The market, particularly the segment operating outside regulated exchanges, is rife with fraudulent practices.¹ The US FBI estimates that binary options scams steal approximately $10 billion annually worldwide.² Common fraudulent tactics reported to regulators like the CFTC and SEC include:

• Refusal to credit customer accounts or process withdrawals.¹
• Identity theft, often through requests for excessive personal documentation under false pretenses.¹
• Manipulation of trading software to generate losing trades for customers, sometimes by altering prices or extending expiration times on winning trades until they become losses.¹
• Misleading marketing, overstating potential returns, and using fake endorsements.¹

A significant structural issue contributing to the risks is the conflict of interest inherent in the business model of many binary options brokers. Unlike traditional brokers who earn commissions or spreads, many binary options platforms act as the direct counterparty to their clients’ trades, meaning they profit directly when their clients lose.³ This creates a powerful incentive for brokers to engage in practices that disadvantage their customers.

Reflecting these profound concerns, financial regulators across the globe have issued numerous warnings to investors about the dangers of binary options trading, emphasizing the high risk of loss and the prevalence of fraud, particularly on unregulated online platforms.¹ These warnings often advise investors to only deal with regulated entities and to be extremely wary of unsolicited offers promising high returns.

III. The Regulatory Gauntlet: Bans and Restrictions on Binary Options

The high risks and widespread fraud associated with binary options have prompted significant regulatory interventions in major financial jurisdictions, primarily aimed at protecting retail investors.

A. United States Framework

In the US, the regulation of binary options is complex, potentially falling under the jurisdiction of either the SEC or the CFTC, depending on the nature of the underlying asset.¹ If the option is based on the price of a security or a narrow-based security index, it is generally considered a security regulated by the SEC.¹ If based on commodities, currencies, broad-based indices, or certain events, it typically falls under the CFTC’s purview as a swap or commodity option.¹ The SEC first approved the listing of binary options on registered exchanges in 2008.²¹

Crucially, for binary options trading to be legal for US persons, it must occur on a CFTC-regulated Designated Contract Market (DCM) or an SEC-registered national securities exchange.¹ Currently, only a few such venues exist, including Nadex (North American Derivatives Exchange), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), which offers similar products often termed “event futures,” and KalshiEX LLC, which lists binary options based on various economic and commercial events.³ These regulated exchanges offer standardized contracts and operate under regulatory oversight designed to ensure fair trading and mitigate counterparty risk.¹³

However, these regulated venues represent only a small fraction of the global binary options market.¹ A vast number of online platforms operate offshore, are not registered with US regulators, and are prohibited by law from soliciting US customers.¹ The CFTC and SEC consistently warn investors that these platforms are frequently involved in fraudulent schemes and that investors using them lack the protections afforded by US regulation.¹ The CFTC maintains a Registration Deficient (RED) List to identify entities illegally targeting US residents.³

Both the SEC and CFTC actively pursue enforcement actions against fraudulent operators and unregistered platforms offering binary options to US persons.¹⁶ These actions often involve substantial monetary penalties, restitution orders, and trading bans, frequently targeting entities and individuals based overseas.¹⁷

The clear bifurcation in the US market—between a small, legal, regulated exchange-based segment and a large, illegal, fraud-prone offshore segment—creates significant enforcement challenges. While it provides a narrow, legitimate avenue for trading standardized contracts that could theoretically involve institutional players, the toxic reputation of the broader binary options market acts as a powerful deterrent. Even engaging in legally permissible trading on regulated exchanges carries the risk of reputational contamination by association with the fraudulent offshore market, making banks, which are highly sensitive to reputational risk, extremely cautious about any involvement.

B. European Union Framework

Concerns over significant investor protection issues led the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to take decisive action across the EU. Utilizing its product intervention powers under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR), ESMA implemented a temporary EU-wide prohibition on the marketing, distribution, and sale of binary options to retail clients, effective from July 2, 2018.⁶ This initial three-month ban was subsequently renewed multiple times as ESMA continued to assess the persistent risks to retail investors.³⁵

ESMA’s intervention was driven by the complexity of the products, the inherent conflict of interest when providers trade against clients, the disparity between expected returns and the risk of loss, and aggressive marketing tactics often targeting vulnerable consumers.²⁷

As ESMA’s temporary intervention powers have time limits, the responsibility shifted to National Competent Authorities (NCAs) within each EU member state to make these restrictions permanent. Authorities in countries like France (Autorité des Marchés Financiers – AMF) and Ireland (Central Bank of Ireland) adopted national measures that mirrored and solidified ESMA’s ban on binary options for retail clients, ensuring the prohibition remained in place after ESMA’s temporary measures expired in mid-2019.⁵ This coordinated transition, supported by ESMA, effectively cemented the ban on retail binary options trading across the EU.⁵ While the ban specifically targets retail clients, leaving a theoretical possibility for trading among professional clients, the overall market environment in the EU became extremely restrictive.³³

C. United Kingdom Framework

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) initially aligned with ESMA’s temporary measures while the UK was subject to EU law.³⁴ However, the FCA moved decisively to establish its own permanent regime. Following consultation, the FCA confirmed a permanent ban on the sale, marketing, and distribution of all binary options to retail consumers by firms acting in or from the UK, which came into force on April 2, 2019.⁷

The FCA’s rationale echoed ESMA’s concerns, citing widespread evidence of consumer harm stemming from the products’ inherent risks and the poor conduct of selling firms, leading to large and unexpected losses.⁷ The FCA explicitly labeled binary options as “gambling products dressed up as financial instruments”.⁷ The regulator estimated that its permanent ban would save UK retail consumers up to £17 million per year and reduce the risk of fraud from unauthorized entities.⁷

Notably, the FCA’s ban went further than ESMA’s initial temporary prohibition by explicitly including “securitised binary options” (defined by ESMA as exchange-listed, prospectus-backed options with minimum terms).⁷ Although these products were not actively sold in the UK at the time, the FCA included them to prevent firms from using them as a loophole to circumvent the ban, deeming them to pose the same risks to investors.⁷

D. Global Context and Coordination

The regulatory crackdown on binary options extends beyond these major financial centers. Jurisdictions such as Israel and Australia have also implemented bans or severe restrictions, reflecting a global consensus on the dangers these products pose, particularly to retail investors.² The cross-border nature of much of the fraudulent activity has necessitated international cooperation among law enforcement agencies and financial regulators. Initiatives like the FBI’s 2017 Binary Options Fraud Summit at Europol highlight efforts to share intelligence and coordinate enforcement actions against global fraud networks.² Joint investor alerts issued by bodies like the CFTC and SEC further underscore the coordinated approach to warning the public.⁴

The overwhelming focus of this global regulatory onslaught has been the protection of retail clients. This emphasis strongly suggests that regulators perceived the primary source of harm to be concentrated among less sophisticated investors who were vulnerable to aggressive, often fraudulent, marketing practices. It implies that potential systemic risks arising from large-scale institutional or bank trading of these instruments were not the principal driver behind these specific binary option regulations, likely because such trading was not occurring to any significant degree.

Table 2: Regulatory Status of Binary Options for Retail Clients (Key Jurisdictions)

Jurisdiction	Regulator(s)	Status	Key Regulations/Decisions/Scope
United States	CFTC / SEC	Permitted ONLY on regulated exchanges (DCMs/Registered Exchanges). Illegal otherwise.	CEA, Securities Act; trading restricted to venues like Nadex, CME (event futures), KalshiEX. Strong warnings against offshore platforms.1
European Union	ESMA / National Competent Authorities (NCAs)	Banned (Marketing, distribution, sale to retail clients).	MiFIR Article 40 (ESMA temporary measures); Permanent national bans implemented by NCAs (e.g., France 40, Ireland 5).
United Kingdom	FCA	Banned (Marketing, distribution, sale to retail clients). Includes securitised.	FCA Handbook Rules (Product Intervention); Permanent ban effective April 2019.7

(Source: Compiled from ¹)

IV. Bank Trading Activities: Constraints under the Volcker Rule and Beyond

Beyond the specific regulations targeting binary options themselves, broader banking regulations governing trading activities significantly limit the potential for bank involvement, particularly in speculative ventures.

A. The Volcker Rule (Section 619 of Dodd-Frank Act)

Enacted in the US in response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Volcker Rule fundamentally reshaped bank trading activities.⁹ Its core provision prohibits “banking entities”—defined generally as insured depository institutions and their affiliates—from engaging in short-term proprietary trading for their own accounts.⁹ This prohibition covers a range of financial instruments, explicitly including securities, derivatives, commodity futures, and options on any of these instruments.⁹

The rule’s primary rationale was to prevent banks, which benefit from federal safety nets like deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window, from using these taxpayer-backed resources to make speculative bets that could endanger the bank itself and the broader financial system.⁹ It aimed to curb excessive risk-taking, mitigate conflicts of interest between banks and their clients, and reinforce a separation between traditional commercial banking (lending, deposit-taking) and riskier investment banking activities, particularly proprietary trading.⁹ The rule seeks to reorient bank activities towards client-focused services that support the real economy.¹⁰

The Volcker Rule applies specifically to trading done for the bank’s own profit and loss account; it does not prohibit activities performed on behalf of clients.¹⁰ Certain exemptions exist, notably for smaller community banks that fall below specified thresholds for total assets and trading assets/liabilities.⁴⁷ For larger institutions, the rule imposes significant compliance burdens, including reporting requirements and the implementation of robust internal controls to ensure adherence.⁹ The explicit ban on short-term proprietary trading in derivatives and options directly addresses the kind of speculative activity that characterizes much of the binary options market, creating a formidable legal barrier for US banks considering trading these instruments for their own profit.

B. Permitted Activities and Exemptions

Despite the broad prohibition on proprietary trading, the Volcker Rule allows banks to continue engaging in several essential market functions, subject to specific conditions and limitations ⁹:

• Market Making: Banks can act as intermediaries, facilitating client transactions by standing ready to buy and sell financial instruments. This involves managing inventory risk and quoting bid-ask spreads. However, market-making activities must be designed to meet reasonably expected near-term demands of clients, customers, or counterparties, and banks must implement strict risk management procedures.⁹
• Underwriting: Assisting companies or government entities in issuing new securities remains a permitted activity.⁹
• Hedging: Banks are allowed to enter into trades, including derivative transactions, to mitigate specific, identifiable risks arising in connection with and related to their individual or aggregated positions, contracts, or other holdings.⁹ These hedging activities must demonstrably reduce or significantly mitigate risk and be subject to ongoing monitoring.¹² Evidence suggests hedging activities by banks are substantial and generally risk-reducing.¹²
• Other Exemptions: Trading in US government, agency, state, and municipal obligations is permitted. Activities related to the bank’s insurance operations, acting solely as an agent, broker, or custodian for clients, and organizing and offering certain hedge funds or private equity funds (subject to strict limitations on investment and sponsorship) are also generally allowed.⁹

A critical caveat applies: even these permitted activities are forbidden if they would create a material conflict of interest between the bank and its clients, result in a material exposure to high-risk assets or trading strategies, or pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the bank or to US financial stability.⁹ Furthermore, distinguishing permitted market-making or hedging from prohibited proprietary trading can be practically challenging, often boiling down to the intent behind the trades and the robustness of compliance frameworks.¹² Regulators scrutinize these distinctions closely.

While market-making is a permitted activity, the specific characteristics of binary options make it difficult to apply this exemption genuinely. True market-making under the Volcker Rule requires demonstrating activity based on client demand and prudent inventory risk management.⁹ The binary options market, however, is heavily skewed towards retail speculation and lacks the deep, two-sided institutional client flow seen in traditional derivatives markets.² Additionally, the “all-or-nothing” payoff structure creates discontinuous inventory risk that is exceptionally difficult to hedge using standard techniques.¹ Attempting to “make a market” in such an environment without genuine, consistent client order flow or effective hedging capabilities would likely be viewed by regulators as disguised proprietary speculation, thus falling foul of the Volcker Rule.

C. International Context and General Prudential Regulation

The principles underlying the Volcker Rule resonate with broader post-financial crisis regulatory trends globally. Initiatives under the Basel III framework, guided by bodies like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), have focused on increasing bank capital and liquidity buffers, enhancing risk management practices, and implementing macroprudential tools to address systemic risk.¹⁰

Structural reform proposals, such as the Vickers Commission recommendations in the UK and the Liikanen report in the EU, also explored ways to separate core retail banking from potentially riskier investment banking and trading activities, reflecting a shared international concern about speculative trading within systemically important institutions.⁵⁵ While implemented differently across jurisdictions, these initiatives underscore a common regulatory objective to insulate essential banking functions from the risks associated with proprietary trading.

Furthermore, ongoing supervisory focus by regulators like the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) emphasizes the importance of strong governance, a sound risk culture, and robust internal models for managing various risks, including market risk associated with trading activities.⁵³ This continuous push for enhanced risk management and transparency implicitly discourages banks from engaging in opaque, complex, or excessively speculative trading strategies like those often associated with binary options.

V. Analysis: Assessing Bank Involvement in Binary Options Trading

Synthesizing the specific regulations governing binary options, the broader constraints on bank trading activities, and the nature of the product itself allows for a comprehensive assessment of potential bank involvement.

A. Proprietary Trading by Banks

Direct proprietary trading of binary options by regulated banks appears highly unlikely and is generally prohibited in key jurisdictions.

• In the US, the Volcker Rule explicitly forbids short-term proprietary trading in derivatives and options by banking entities, directly encompassing the speculative nature of typical binary options trading.⁹
• In the EU and UK, comprehensive bans on the sale, marketing, and distribution of binary options to retail clients effectively eliminate the primary counterparty base for the type of binary options most commonly traded.⁵
• The extreme reputational risk associated with a market plagued by fraud and regulatory warnings acts as a powerful deterrent for institutions concerned with maintaining public trust and regulatory standing.²
• The speculative, often gambling-like nature of binary options runs counter to the post-crisis emphasis on prudential risk management and financial stability embedded in global banking regulations like Basel III and enforced by supervisors.¹⁰
• A review of public enforcement actions reveals no significant cases targeting major regulated banks for improper proprietary trading of binary options, suggesting it is not a widespread practice or a major regulatory concern within the banking sector itself.⁶⁰

The regulatory perimeter established around banks is robust, while the most problematic binary options activity occurs largely outside this perimeter on unregulated, often offshore, platforms. Banks’ avoidance of this space is therefore driven by a combination of direct legal prohibitions (Volcker Rule, retail bans), the high cost and complexity of ensuring compliance if activity were permitted, and a strong aversion to the significant reputational damage associated with this market.

B. Market-Making and Hedging Activities

While proprietary trading is off-limits, the possibility of banks engaging in permitted activities like market-making or hedging involving binary options warrants consideration, albeit with significant caveats.

• Market-making and hedging are permissible under the Volcker Rule and similar regulatory frameworks, provided strict conditions are met regarding client focus and risk mitigation.⁹
• Legitimate, regulated exchanges (Nadex, CME, Kalshi in the US) offer standardized binary option or event contracts that could theoretically be instruments for such activities.¹³
• However, practical barriers remain substantial. Institutional client demand for these specific exchange-traded binary products appears limited compared to the vast markets for traditional options and futures. The utility of binary options for hedging complex financial exposures is narrow due to their fixed, discontinuous payout structure.
• As noted previously, demonstrating that market-making in binary options genuinely meets client demand and avoids prohibited proprietary speculation is challenging given the market’s characteristics.¹² The inherent difficulty in hedging binary positions increases the risk that inventory positions effectively become speculative bets.
• The overall toxicity and negative perception of the binary options label likely deter banks from allocating significant capital or resources even to the regulated segments of this market.

Therefore, while theoretically possible within the narrow confines of regulated exchanges and permitted activity exemptions, significant market-making or hedging in binary options by banks seems improbable and likely minimal in practice.

C. Clearing, Brokerage, and Ancillary Services

Banks might have limited involvement in providing ancillary services related to regulated binary options or event contracts, which is distinct from trading these instruments themselves.

• Banks routinely act as clearing members for various derivatives exchanges. For instance, CFTC no-action relief granted to KalshiEX involved arrangements for clearing its event-based binary option contracts.¹⁵ Banks could potentially provide clearing services for institutional clients trading on regulated venues like CME or Nadex.
• Banks could also act as brokers, executing trades on regulated exchanges on behalf of institutional clients.
• These roles fall under permitted agency, custody, or clearing functions and do not involve the bank taking proprietary positions in binary options.⁹ Involvement in this capacity would depend entirely on client demand for trading these specific products through bank channels.

D. Evidence from Enforcement Actions

An examination of publicly available enforcement actions from key regulators (SEC, CFTC, OCC, etc.) provides further context. There is a consistent and high volume of enforcement activity targeting fraudulent binary options schemes, unregistered platforms, misleading marketing practices (including affiliate marketers), and individuals perpetrating these scams.¹⁶ These actions often involve significant financial penalties and international cooperation.⁴

Conversely, there is a striking lack of major enforcement actions specifically citing large, regulated banking institutions for improperly trading binary options, either proprietary or otherwise. General enforcement actions against banks cover a wide range of other issues, such as violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules, deficiencies in risk management systems, consumer protection violations (e.g., mortgage servicing, improper fees), interest rate risk mismanagement, or individual employee misconduct like embezzlement or fraud unrelated to binary options.⁶⁰ This disparity strongly suggests that the trading of binary options by regulated banks is not a significant issue from a regulatory enforcement perspective, reinforcing the conclusion that such activity is minimal or non-existent.

The emergence of regulated “event contracts” on platforms like CME and Kalshi ¹³ represents a potential, albeit highly controlled and niche, area where binary-style payouts might exist within the regulated financial system. Any bank involvement here would likely be confined to facilitating institutional clients or executing very specific hedging strategies under strict regulatory oversight, entirely separate from the speculative retail market banned in the EU/UK and largely operating illicitly elsewhere. While this area warrants monitoring, it does not reflect widespread bank trading of the instruments commonly understood as binary options.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. Final Assessment

Based on the comprehensive analysis of the regulatory landscape, banking constraints, product characteristics, and market evidence, the conclusion is clear: regulated banking institutions do not engage in the speculative proprietary trading of binary options as the term is commonly understood. The convergence of direct prohibitions (such as the Volcker Rule in the US and retail sales bans in the EU and UK), the product’s inherent high risks and deep association with widespread fraud, and the overarching focus of modern prudential regulation on financial stability and risk reduction effectively precludes banks from participating in this market for their own accounts.

Any theoretical or actual involvement by banks appears restricted to the periphery. This could potentially include minimal, highly controlled market-making or specific hedging activities utilizing standardized, exchange-traded binary options or event futures on regulated venues, or the provision of ancillary services such as clearing and brokerage for institutional clients operating within these regulated markets. Such limited activities are fundamentally distinct from the speculative, often fraudulent, trading that characterizes the broader, largely unregulated binary options space.

B. Key Distinction

It is imperative to distinguish clearly between the activities and regulatory obligations of established, regulated banking institutions and the operations of the numerous, often fraudulent and unregulated (frequently offshore), online platforms that aggressively market binary options primarily to retail investors. The significant risks, investor harm, and illicit activities widely associated with “binary options” predominantly originate from this latter category, which operates largely outside the stringent regulatory perimeter governing banks.

C. Recommendations for Stakeholders

• Investors: Extreme caution is warranted regarding any platform or solicitation involving binary options. Before committing any funds, investors must verify that the platform is registered and regulated by the appropriate authorities in their jurisdiction (e.g., CFTC or SEC in the US).¹ Investors in the EU and UK should be aware that any firm offering binary options to retail clients is highly likely to be operating illegally or is a scam, given the outright bans in place.⁷ Unsolicited offers, promises of guaranteed high returns, and pressure tactics are major red flags.²⁸ Utilizing resources like the FCA’s ScamSmart pages or the CFTC/SEC investor alert websites is advisable.⁴
• Compliance Professionals within Banks: Financial institutions should ensure their internal policies and compliance frameworks explicitly prohibit proprietary trading in binary options, consistent with the Volcker Rule and similar international principles. Any potential engagement with regulated event contract markets (e.g., through market-making, hedging, clearing, or brokerage for clients) must be rigorously vetted to ensure strict adherence to all applicable regulations, including Volcker Rule requirements, robust risk management protocols, clear documentation of intent (hedging vs. speculation), and thorough conflict-of-interest assessments. Training should emphasize the risks and regulatory status of these products.
• Regulators: Continued vigorous enforcement against unregistered and fraudulent binary options platforms remains crucial to protect investors and maintain market integrity.³ Public awareness campaigns and clear investor warnings about the specific risks and prevalence of fraud in this area should be maintained and updated.⁴ Regulatory bodies should continue to monitor the evolving market for event contracts and similar products traded on regulated exchanges to ensure these venues do not inadvertently become conduits for the type of high-risk, speculative activities that have been prohibited or restricted in other market segments. Vigilance is required to ensure that financial innovation does not lead to the re-emergence of similar risks under new guises, potentially drawing regulated entities into problematic activities indirectly. International cooperation remains essential to combat cross-border fraud effectively.²

Download PDF

Works cited

1. CFTC/SEC Investor Alert: Binary Options and Fraud, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/fraudadv_binaryoptions.html
2. Binary option – Wikipedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_option
3. Beware of Off-Exchange Binary Options Trades | CFTC, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/beware_of_off_exchange_binary_options.htm
4. Binary Options Fraud – FBI, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/binary-options-fraud
5. The Central Bank, Binary Options and CFDs, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/knowledge/financial-services-regulation/the-central-bank-binary-options-and-cfds
6. ESMA adopts final product intervention measures on CFDs and binary options, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-adopts-final-product-intervention-measures-cfds-and-binary-options
7. FCA confirms permanent ban on the sale of binary options to retail consumers, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-confirms-permanent-ban-sale-binary-options-retail-consumers
8. Are binary options legal in the US? – Nadex, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.nadex.com/blog/are-binary-options-legal-in-the-us/
9. Volcker Rule: Definition, Purpose, How It Works, and Criticism – Investopedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volcker-rule.asp
10. The Volcker Rule: Liquidity Impacts and Other Myths Used to Carry Water for the Banks | Better Markets, accessed April 22, 2025, https://bettermarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Volcker-Rule-Liquidity-Impacts-and-Other-Myths-Used-to-Carry-Water-for-the-Banks-002.pdf
11. Hollowing Out the Volcker Rule – Center for American Progress, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/hollowing-volcker-rule/
12. Proprietary Trading Review – Bank of England, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/proprietary-trading-review-2020.pdf
13. Trading Forex With Binary Options – Investopedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/022415/trading-forex-binary-options.asp
14. A Guide to Trading Binary Options in the US – Investopedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/061114/guide-trading-binary-options-us.asp
15. Updated: CFTC Grants No-Action Relief for Certain Binary Option Transactions – Westlaw, accessed April 22, 2025, https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I1a77f71fadbb11ebbea4f0dc9fb69570/Updated-CFTC-Grants-No-Action-Relief-for-Certain-Binary-Option-Transactions?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
16. US CFTC Takes Action Against Unregistered Crypto and Binary Options Platforms, accessed April 22, 2025, https://charltonsquantum.com/us-cftc-takes-action-against-unregistered-crypto-and-binary-options-platforms/
17. Banc de Binary Ltd. – SEC.gov, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-22718
18. Federal Court Orders International Enterprise to Pay Over $451 Million for Global Binary Options Fraud | CFTC, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9040-25
19. CFTC Files Nine Enforcement Actions Addressing Fraudulent Binary Options Solicitations and One Addressing Cross-Exchange Manipulation, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7808-18
20. Binary Options Strategies You Should Know – Investopedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/052014/binary-options-strategies.asp
21. Binary Option: Definition, How They Trade, and Example – Investopedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/binary-option.asp
22. What Are Binary Options: Definition, How Do They Work, and Example | LiteFinance, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.litefinance.org/blog/for-beginners/what-are-binary-options/
23. What Are Binary Options? – SmartAsset, accessed April 22, 2025, https://smartasset.com/investing/what-are-binary-options
24. Futures Glossary | CFTC, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/CFTCGlossary/index.htm
25. The Basics of Investing In Binary Options – Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, accessed April 22, 2025, https://dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/information/basics-investing-binary-options
26. www.investopedia.com, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/061114/guide-trading-binary-options-us.asp#:~:text=The%20main%20advantage%20of%20binary,risk%2Dreward%20ratio%20is%20clear.
27. PS19/11: Product intervention measures for retail binary options – Financial Conduct Authority, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/impact-assessments/product-intervention-retail-binary-options.pdf
28. Beware of Online Binary Options Schemes – Missouri Secretary of State, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.sos.mo.gov/bewareofonlinebinaryoptionsschemes
29. Central Bank of Ireland Binary Options Intervention Measure pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/Regulation/industry-market-sectors/investment-firms/mifid-firms/regulatory-requirements-and-guidance/central-bank-binary-options-intervention-measure.pdf
30. Financial Regulation: Weekly Update – BBVA Research, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bbvaresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/312-Weekly.21.09.2018_eng.pdf
31. CFTC Issues Cease and Desist Order to Binary Options Operator Using Smart Contracts, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.blockchainandthelaw.com/2022/01/cftc-issues-cease-and-desist-order-to-binary-options-operator-using-smart-contracts/
32. A Look Back on the CFTC’s Robust Year in Enforcement | Corporate Compliance Insights, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/a-look-back-on-the-cftcs-robust-year-in-enforcement/
33. Europe wide ban on risky binary options – DLA Piper, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/es-pr/insights/publications/2018/10/finance-and-markets-global-insight-issue-15/europe-wide-ban-on-risky-binary-options
34. Europe wide ban on risky binary options – DLA Piper, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2018/10/finance-and-markets-global-insight-issue-15/europe-wide-ban-on-risky-binary-options
35. Notice of ESMA’s Product Intervention Renewal Decision in relation to binary options, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/markets-update/esma-guidelines-and-recommendations/markets-update-issue-14-2018/european-securities-and-markets-authority-(esma)/notice-of-esma-s-product-intervention-renewal-decision-in-relation-to-binary-options
36. ESMA renews binary options prohibition for a further three months from 2 January 2019, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-renews-binary-options-prohibition-further-three-months-2-january-2019
37. Notice of ESMA’s Product Intervention Renewal Decision in relation to binary options, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/notice-esma%E2%80%99s-product-intervention-renewal-decision-in-relation-binary-option-1
38. ESMA renews binary options prohibition for a further three months from 2 April 2019, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-renews-binary-options-prohibition-further-three-months-2-april-2019
39. EU Product Intervention Measures for Binary Options Extended – A&O Shearman | FinReg, accessed April 22, 2025, https://finreg.aoshearman.com/eu-product-intervention-measures-for-binary-optio
40. Binary options and CFDs: the AMF adopts national intervention measures – Autorité des marchés financiers, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-news-releases/binary-options-and-cfds-amf-adopts-national-intervention-measures
41. UK Financial Conduct Authority Implements Permanent Ban of Sale of Binary Options to Retail Consumers – A&O Shearman | FinReg, accessed April 22, 2025, https://finreg.aoshearman.com/UK-Financial-Conduct-Authority-Implements-Permane
42. UK FCA Charges Four Individuals with £1.2M Binary Options Fraud – Finance Magnates, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/uk-fca-charges-four-persons-in-12m-binary-options-fraud/
43. Compliance Corner: UK Bans Binary Options For Retail Investors – Family Wealth Report, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.familywealthreport.com/article.php/Compliance-Corner:-UK-Bans-Binary-Options-For-Retail-Investors-
44. FCA Introduces Permanent Ban on Binary Options to Retail Consumers – objectivus, accessed April 22, 2025, https://objectivus.com/fca-introduces-permanent-ban-on-binary-options-to-retail-consumers/
45. UK: Regulator to permanently ban binary options trading – PYMNTS.com, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/uk-regulator-to-permanently-ban-binary-options-trading/
46. FCA confirms ban on of binary option retail sales – iGB – iGaming Business, accessed April 22, 2025, https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/fca-confirms-ban-on-of-binary-option-retail-sales/
47. Volcker Rule | FDIC.gov, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.fdic.gov/capital-markets/volcker-rule
48. Volcker Rule Implementation – Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) – Treasury, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading-volcker-rule/volcker-rule-implementation.html
49. The Fed – Trading Activities at Systemically Important Banks, Part 3: What Drives Trading Performance? – Federal Reserve Board, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/trading-activities-at-systemically-important-banks-part-3-what-drives-trading-performance-20170710.html
50. BANK REGULATION, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND COMPLIANCE – OAPEN Library, accessed April 22, 2025, https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/23351/1/9780367367497_oachapter6.pdf
51. Large Banks and the Volcker Rule – NYU Stern, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_044456.pdf
52. Market-making and proprietary trading: industry trends, drivers and policy implications – Bank for International Settlements, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs52.pdf
53. 2024 Regulation Outlook Report – Management Solutions, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.managementsolutions.com/sites/default/files/publicaciones/eng/regulation-outlook-anual-2024.pdf
54. Report on impact assessment for liquidity measures under Article 509(1) of the CRR – Extranet, accessed April 22, 2025, https://extranet.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/16145/EBA+BS+2013+415+Report+regarding+LCR+impact.pdf
55. Structural bank regulation initiatives: approaches and implications, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bis.org/publ/work412.pdf
56. Regulation Outlook Report 4Q24 – Management Solutions, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.managementsolutions.com/sites/default/files/publicaciones/eng/4Q24-regulation-outlook.pdf
57. EBA publishes market risk and transaction determination standards – The DESK – The leading source of information for bond traders, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.fi-desk.com/eba-publishes-market-risk-and-transaction-determination-standards/
58. The EBA publishes final draft technical standards on market risk as part of its roadmap for the implementation of the Banking Package in the EU, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.eba.europa.eu/publications-and-media/press-releases/eba-publishes-final-draft-technical-standards-market-risk-part-its-roadmap-implementation-banking
59. FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATION – DLA Piper Intelligence, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dlapiperintelligence.com/investmentrules/blog/articles/2018/downloads/Exchange_International_Feb_2018.pdf
60. OCC Announces Enforcement Actions for March 2025, accessed April 22, 2025, https://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2025/nr-occ-2025-20.html
61. Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance – Treasury, accessed April 22, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/DeFi-Risk-Full-Review.pdf
62. Derivatives, Legislative and Regulatory Weekly Update (October 11, 2024) – Gibson Dunn, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.gibsondunn.com/derivatives-legislative-and-regulatory-weekly-update-october-11-2024/
63. OCC Announces Enforcement Actions for April 2025, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2025/nr-occ-2025-35.html
64. CFTC Issues Proposed Rules on Event Contracts – Morrison Foerster, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/240520-cftc-issues-proposed-rules-on-event-contracts