Review 2026: FBS Complaints, Regulation, and Withdrawal Risk Signals

Executive Summary (TL;DR): FBS is listed with regulation from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, yet the WikiFX score shown is only 1.67. The broker also has 173 user complaints received by WikiFX in the past three months, with many cases involving withdrawals, balance adjustments, slippage, and account access concerns.

Before you find a broker through advertising, social media, or a referral, you need to separate brand visibility from fund safety. In this review, FBS appears as a widely searched Forex broker with an influence rank of A, but the risk picture is not simple: the available data combines regulated entities, negative regulatory disclosures, decent trading-environment test results, and a very heavy complaint record.

Regulation and Safety

FBS is described as a Belize-based broker established in 2017. The safety data lists two regulators with an active status: the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, under Intelligent Financial Markets Pty Ltd with regulation number 426359, and the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, under Tradestone Ltd with license number 331/17.

That regulation status matters because ASIC and CySEC are recognized financial regulators. For a trader, regulated entities may mean more formal oversight than an offshore-only structure. Still, you should not stop at the regulator names. You need to confirm which legal entity you are opening the account with, which website is used, and whether your country is covered by the same licensed entity.

The source data also shows two regulatory disclosures. The Securities Commission Malaysia placed FBS-related websites on an investor alert list for unauthorized capital market activities involving securities and derivatives. Japans Financial Services Agency also listed “FBS Markets Inc.” as an unregistered operator soliciting over-the-counter derivatives transactions online. These disclosures do not erase the listed ASIC and CySEC entries, but they do raise a practical question: are you dealing with the licensed entity, or with a brand/site operating outside local permission?

WikiFX Score and Visible Risk Signals

The WikiFX score shown for FBS is 1.67. Treat this as a live data point, not a permanent verdict, but it is low enough to demand caution. The summary also states that WikiFX received 173 user complaints about FBS in the past three months.

This is the core tension in the FBS broker profile. On one side, there are regulated entries and an A influence rank. On the other, there are many exposure cases and negative regulatory disclosures. If you are considering a deposit, the complaint volume should carry real weight, especially because the cases are not limited to one country or one isolated payment method.

Trading Conditions and Execution Data

FBS provides two account types in the available data: Standard and Ultra. Both show an entry condition of 50 units and maximum leverage of 1:30. The Standard account lists a main spread from 0.7, while the Ultra account lists a main spread from 0. For Forex trading, leverage of 1:30 is moderate compared with many offshore offers, but it can still magnify losses quickly when spreads widen or execution moves against you.

The trade environment test result is marked Good with a Grade A, based on 8,484 traders and 48,109 test records. The data shows average speed of 446.8 ms, fastest opening speed of 17 ms, fastest closing speed of 33 ms, average slippage of 0.4, maximum slippage of 29, and cost grade AA. These figures look positive in isolation.

Yet the complaint record repeatedly mentions slippage, stop-loss gaps, unusual candle prices, forced take-profit settings, and balance adjustments after profitable trades. That does not prove every trade issue is broker misconduct, but it means you should test execution with small size first and keep detailed screenshots of order tickets, server time, price feeds, and transaction history.

Platform and Account Access

The platform data lists proprietary software, MT4, and MT5, with mobile support on iOS and Android. The evaluation used MT5 and described it as customizable, multilingual, and clear on fee reporting. However, the same platform note says it lacks safer login features such as two-step login and biometric authentication.

That is not a claim that FBS has login failures. It is a security point. Before entering account details, check that you are using the official website or verified app download path, and avoid links sent through unofficial Telegram, social media, or referral channels.

Deposits, Withdrawals, and Support

The payment list includes cards, Sticpay, Fasapay, several Indonesian bank channels, OVO, DANA, QRIS, and other local methods. Customer service is available through phone, email, WhatsApp, and social channels, and the source says support covers multiple languages and two main regions, but waiting time may be long.

This matters because many exposure cases describe withdrawal delays, rejected withdrawals, unanswered emails, or requests for repeated KYC and AML documents. Several users said funds appeared as approved or successful in the broker dashboard but did not arrive in their bank or wallet. Others reported that deposits were rejected while money was deducted from their bank account.

Trader Complaints and Exposure Patterns

The complaint evidence is broad and recent. A Kenya user said after depositing $700 and growing the account to $2,500, FBS deducted $1,133.56 and described the issue as a “fixed balance” problem. A Philippines user reported repeated inability to withdraw money from wallet and card channels. A Vietnam user complained that crypto deposits led to AML checks and no withdrawal, and also alleged added slippage after profits.

Final Verdict: Should I open an account?

FBS is not a simple case of “regulated means safe.” The available data shows ASIC and CySEC regulation entries, recognized MT4/MT5 support, mobile apps, and good trade-environment testing. At the same time, the WikiFX score of 1.67, two regulatory disclosures, and a large number of recent complaints create a serious risk profile.

If you still want to test FBS, avoid large deposits, document every step, verify the legal entity, and test withdrawal before scaling up. The biggest missing confidence factor is not platform availability; it is whether complaints about withdrawals, balance adjustments, and execution disputes are being resolved consistently.

Status changes daily. Before depositing, check the WikiFX App for the latest real-time certificate.