Linear

After reviewing Linear as a potential trading partner, I must admit that assessing their swap fees or overnight financing charges proved unusually challenging. From my perspective as a trader who always checks these costs closely—they have a direct impact on long-term profitability—I was frustrated by Linear’s lack of transparent, published details regarding their swap rates. Unlike some brokers who make such charges easy to research, I found no concrete fee schedule on their official site or in public documentation linked to their STP offering. In my experience, reputable brokers provide either a detailed swap rate table or a transparent calculator so traders can estimate their overnight costs easily. The absence of such information from Linear is a significant concern for me, especially given the high potential risk and certain red flags reported, like their “Danger” label on regulatory listings and issues with UK office verification. I’m aware that Linear holds an FCA license, which should signal compliance, and normally I would expect fair, market-aligned financing charges under such regulation. But, in practice, the lack of clarity makes it difficult for me to compare Linear’s fees to other brokers like XM, AvaTrade, and Exness—all of whom, in my experience, offer more accessible data and typically competitive rates. Given these uncertainties, my approach would be one of caution. Until Linear offers more transparency regarding their swap and overnight policies, I personally would not risk holding trades overnight with them. For a trader with a style similar to mine, clear and upfront cost disclosure is non-negotiable when choosing a broker.

After reviewing the available information on Linear, I need to be direct about the practical limitations I experienced. There is no explicit mention of inactivity fees in the provided data. In my experience as a trader with many brokers, the absence of clear information about such fees is already a risk factor worth considering. Brokers regulated in the UK, like Linear, should generally provide detailed disclosures regarding all account-related charges—including inactivity or dormancy fees—on their official platforms or legal documents. However, the WikiFX context makes it apparent that some aspects of Linear’s business raise caution. For instance, there’s a “Suspicious Scope of Business” label, a “High potential risk” warning, and mentions that a recent visit in the UK found no physical office—a significant transparency issue for me. These factors all contribute to uncertainty around ancillary costs, including potential inactivity fees. For my own practice, I would not assume that the lack of public disclosure means there are no fees. Before committing funds, I would always reach out directly to their customer service and request a comprehensive list of account charges in writing. In the absence of transparent evidence, I would proceed with heightened caution and recommend others do the same. For traders who value cost clarity, I believe this lack of certainty is a serious consideration.

In my experience as a forex trader, I approach brokers like Linear with a high level of caution. While Linear has been operating for 10-15 years and is formally regulated in the United Kingdom under the FCA (with license details publicly available), several points raise immediate red flags for me. Notably, WikiFX highlights “high potential risk” and specifically warns about a suspicious scope of business. For me, this signals that their operations may not be entirely transparent or fully aligned with best industry practices. Additionally, the risk management index for Linear is listed at 0.00. From a practical standpoint, this implies a possible lack of adequate processes or controls in place to safeguard client funds or mitigate trading risks, which is a significant point of concern for anyone considering entrusting a broker with their capital. Even more worrying, a previous field survey reportedly found no physical office at their listed UK address, which is something I see as a major trust issue. The fact that the FCA published a decision notice concerning Linear Investments Limited in 2018 further compels me to question their operational reliability. As someone who’s seen how crucial strong corporate governance and solid regulatory standing are to financial safety, such disclosures convince me to exercise heightened vigilance. While Linear may hold a legitimate license, these combined compliance and transparency issues are enough for me to personally avoid them in favor of brokers with clearer, more robust track records and fewer ambiguities regarding their business practices and client protections.

Drawing directly from my due diligence and the documented broker information, Linear does not appear to advertise or prominently support popular retail trading platforms such as MT4, MT5, or cTrader. During my research, I did not find any evidence of MetaTrader or cTrader offerings associated with Linear. Instead, their operational focus seems to be on institutional service provisions under an STP model, which typically caters to professional clients rather than retail traders like myself who primarily depend on established trading interfaces for daily executions. For traders like me, the absence of a widely recognized and regulated platform is a significant consideration. Platforms such as MT4 or MT5 are industry standards for their transparency, functionality, and third-party oversight. When these are missing, I tend to proceed very cautiously, as it can introduce potential operational risk and limit my ability to use familiar automated strategies or market analysis tools. Furthermore, WikiFX noted both a "suspicious scope of business" warning and that no physical office was found during an in-person check, compounding my reservations. In summary, based on available information, Linear does not openly support MT4, MT5, or cTrader. For traders accustomed to these platforms, this absence warrants a conservative and risk-aware approach before considering engagement with this broker.