Is forex market controlled by someone? - page 36
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
If after the last 3 days someone still thinks that the forex is not manipulated, then it is a deliberate eye closing not to see the facts. Days when the forex market was a market and not a "market" are gon
this is non controll market. but some organization has high impact to forex market as a Central Bank, FED, IMF.... some biggest organization. they can give some policy it impact to currency.
this is non controll market. but some organization has high impact to forex market as a Central Bank, FED, IMF.... some biggest organization. they can give some policy it impact to currency.
See this : Forex scandal: How to rig the market - BBC News
Enjoy
Market Is Rigged, HFTs Are Harmful, And Nothing Will Change According To ConvergEx Survey
Earlier today we told (or more appropriately “retold,” because we called it for what it was right after it happened two years ago) the story of a Citadel algo gone rogue that inadvertently played havoc with the E-mini on June 3, 2013. Thankfully, the penalty was stiff for the world’s most highly leveraged hedge fund as the CME doled out a massive $70,000 fine which we suspect someone at the firm probably paid with the cash they were carrying in their wallet. It’s incidents like this — and “flashy” bestsellers — that have a nasty habit of shifting perceptions which is why we weren’t surprised to see the results of a market structure survey conducted by ConvergEx:
At this time we are pleased to share the results of our recent U.S. Equity Market Structure Survey, the results of which show both displeasure in current market structure and a desire for change. Our survey found that a majority of financial industry participants believe that the U.S. equity markets are unfair and that HFT is harmful.
read more
is there someone that does not know that the market is rigged
Hardline New York regulator Lawsky targets Deutsche Bank over Libor
Benjamin Lawsky, the New York regulator known for taking a hard line against overseas banks, has shouldered his way into the long-running Libor scandal, investigating Deutsche Bank for alleged manipulation of the benchmark borrowing rate, according to people familiar with the matter.
The probe by New York’s Department of Financial Services adds to a litany of US regulatory problems for Germany’s largest lender.
It is the first Libor investigation by the DFS, which has become known under Mr Lawsky’s leadership for taking a tough approach to allegations of banks’ wrongdoing. The department has previously ratcheted up the cost of settling allegations of misconduct.
Deutsche is negotiating a separate plea deal in a Libor probe by the US Justice Department and is one of the few European banks yet to reach a settlement with prosecutors. It was unclear whether the bank would be able to settle both Libor probes in one deal, the people familiar with the matter said.
Deutsche said: “We continue to work with the authorities that are reviewing interbank offered rates matters.”
The DFS has two other investigations into Deutsche for potential manipulation of foreign exchange rates and possible sanctions violations because of its alleged past dealings with businesses in Iran.
Until now the regulator has stayed out of the Libor probes that have resulted in settlements totalling more than $2bn with financial institutions including Barclays, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland.
Some of those banks, including UBS, are not under the jurisdiction of the DFS, which regulates banks chartered in New York state, such as Goldman Sachs, and foreign banks with branches in New York such as Deutsche and Standard Chartered.
Others appeared to have escaped scrutiny by the department by settling earlier when the DFS’s resources were tied up in other investigations into sanctions violations and money laundering allegations, people familiar with the cases said.
The DFS’s participation could lead to stiffer penalties, the people said. So far the Libor probe at the DFS is focused on the German lender and does not include other banks.
Deutsche has one of the biggest presences in the US of any overseas bank, with a sizeable investment bank and trading operation. Since the financial crisis, it has been the subject of multiple investigations by different agencies — some industry-wide and some unique to Deutsche.
It has also had a frosty relationship with the Federal Reserve, which has faulted Deutsche’s risk controls and the capital management of its US operations. A US subsidiary failed its first annual capital test last month.
Authorities around the world are continuing to investigate individuals and banks for allegedly submitting false measures of their borrowing costs in order to boost the profits on trades. Libor was calculated from an average of the rate at which banks said they borrowed in the interbank market. Reporting an inaccurate number — off by a few basis points — could swell profits on trades that used Libor as a reference rate.
source
i think the forex market is controled by us and by ask and bid and banks economy
I think every company has their own rule. They prepare the rules for their needs.
Forex is not a company. It is a ZOO without any normal rules - and that is used to rig it
Forex is not a company. It is a ZOO without any normal rules - and that is used to rig it
Rocking sound.
Europe’s Currency Manipulation
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which the European Union and the United States currently are negotiating, would, studies say, boost welfare and reduce unemployment in both economies, as well as in other countries. At the same time, the TTIP could help to restore confidence in Europe and the transatlantic community. But there is one major barrier to realizing these benefits: the euro.
The problem stems from currency manipulation. Over the past three decades, the US has de facto tolerated currency manipulation by its major Asian trading partners, which built up large trade and current-account surpluses by suppressing the value of their currencies.
But the US is unlikely to accept such behavior within free-trade zones. Indeed, a bipartisan majority in the US Congress is already demanding that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a mega-regional free-trade deal involving 12 Pacific Rim countries – should include provisions barring currency manipulation.
Discussions about currency manipulation have long focused on China, which is not part of the TPP, but could join it, or a similar arrangement, in the future. But the economy with the biggest current-account surplus today is not China; it is the eurozone. In fact, at more than $300 billion, the eurozone’s current-account surplus for 2014 was about 50% larger than China’s.
The reason for this is simple: monetary expansion, which leads to currency depreciation, is the only macroeconomic tool available to the European Central Bank to boost the competitiveness of struggling economies like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France. As a result, current-account deficits in the southern countries have diminished or disappeared, while surpluses in countries like Germany have increased, causing the eurozone’s overall surplus to swell.
An unsolvable problem for the ECB is that the euro remains too strong for the depressed southern countries and too weak for Germany. While allowing it to appreciate would help to reduce the current-account surplus, it would also exacerbate the economic distress in the depressed southern countries. This, in turn, would further strengthen the populist and anti-European political movements that have capitalized on social hardship to win support.
Some observers believe that the eurozone’s internal imbalances can be reduced if Germany increases infrastructure spending and allows wages to rise faster. But for many Germans, who withstood difficult social-security and labor-market reforms in 2003-2005, a deliberate effort to diminish hard-won competitiveness gains is not an option. The fact that 63% of German exports go to countries outside the eurozone – meaning that German companies must be able to compete with their counterparts all over the world, not just in the monetary union – makes the issue even more sensitive.
Other observers claim that further integration, especially progress toward fiscal and political union, would provide the eurozone with alternative instruments – namely, wealth transfers – to improve depressed countries’ competitiveness. But, as Italy and Germany have learned in their largely failed (and extremely expensive) efforts to stimulate uncompetitive regions, such expectations are unjustified. Indeed, despite spending huge amounts of taxpayer money – amounting annually to 16% of regional GDP in southern Italy and 25% of regional GDP in eastern Germany – the Italian and German economies have gained little.
Given that the eurozone probably would be unable to provide its non-competitive members with such large annual transfers, such a strategy would be even less likely to work there. Likewise, structural policies aimed at improving the competitiveness of underdeveloped regions of a single-currency area have repeatedly proven ineffective and expensive.
In short, the eurozone’s internal imbalances are likely to persist – and, with them, its undervalued currency and massive current-account surplus. To be sure, one might argue that as long as the ECB does not intervene directly by purchasing foreign-currency assets, the eurozone does not qualify as a currency manipulator. But given the purposeful nature of the ECB’s actions – not to mention the eurozone’s leading position in the global economy – this argument probably will not hold up for long.
At its core, currency manipulation is any intentional intervention that results in an undervalued currency and a substantial current-account surplus – exactly what the ECB is doing. If the ECB maintains this policy for an extended period, tension with the US is all but inevitable – tension that may obstruct the TTIP’s approval by the US Congress or hinder the treaty’s actual operation, resulting in its deterioration or termination.
This runs counter to the popular view, which drove the eurozone’s creation, that Europe needs a single currency to compete with large economies like the US, China, and India. In fact, if eurozone members kept (or restored) their national currencies, linked through adjustable currency bands, they could resolve their imbalances fairly easily, without generating such a large overall current-account surplus. Instead, they are at risk of sparking a currency war with major global economic actors – losing much-needed trading partners and allies in the process.
source