Why have subscriptions been banned on the grounds of "too high a yield" ? - page 66
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
Isn't the interest on the leverage going to be high?
What's the leverage? Nobody takes the transaction anywhere, what's the interest?
Well, here comes the fairy tale))
ZS: The order is walking through Guadeloupe to the liquidity provider?
No, it's not a fairy tale. It's a special feature of the mt4.
Watch the trick, I'll show you.
And then bam!
I don't get it.So it turns out for execution of fictitious limits through the liquidity provider, there may be no liquidity, but it is always available in the company
In short, the issue of watching your limit inside the spread of the company (two) is pure fetish, when the question of liquidity is not resolved.
You just don't understand what I'm talking about. Two completely different points. In networks like Karrencas and similar the limit can also default because they send an order to the Bank and MT has nothing to do with it.
And at MT, client limits cannot represent liquidity for other clients.
I don't understand why you are piling everything up, but whatever.
What kind of leverage is it because no one takes the transaction anywhere, what kind of interest?
I am reminded of a calculation of a Swiss bank D***s, I was planning to open an account there. I think it was specified how the leverage size affects the swap. I cannot find the link, it stuck in my memory. Probably I am mistaken.
By the way, let me get back to the origin of the leverage: logically speaking, one has to pay for the leverage, so the absence of fee for providing the leverage is another proof that this very "leverage" is artificial. So it is just a mathematical operation)
Anyway, what serious organisation, let alone a bank, would go for such a monstrous diversion?
Even if not via Guadalupe, any developer knows that one millisecond is enough to catch this thing sooner or later. Either the orders are matched on the same site or they go somewhere, it completely changes the execution methodology.
See:
1. there is a buy limit which will be deducted (to the provider) when the price approaches
2. i.e. Provider has an order at the level where mine is
3. why X in the terminal bid is not returned to the buy limit level if the liquidity provider has an order (i.e. his office has sent there)?
ZS: you don't have to answer that
It's not the bank that provides the leverage, it's the broker. I have even seen the maximum leverage of some brokers go up to 2,000. I do not know how exactly the internal mechanism works. )
Probably everything is aggregated and then sent to the supplier. )
The arrangement is very simple.
A company has a deposit with a supplier with 1:100 leverage.
If a company's deposit is 5 times larger than its total client's deposit, the company can easily give 1:500 leverage to its clients without risk of getting a Margin Call from a supplier.
And if you consider that a large client base on average does not load client deposits with more than 10%, then you really do not even need to have more money than client deposits with the provider.
Even if not via Guadeloupe, any developer knows that it only takes one millisecond to catch this fic sooner or later. Either the orders are matched on the same platform or they go somewhere, this completely changes the execution methodology.
Some of the "programmers" here don't have the faintest idea of what is:
1) a distributed system;
2) transport latency;
3) queue processing;
etc.
So, they don't send anything anywhere, they just model inside the office, i.e. it's essentially the same kitchen, only with new possibilities
to sell to Peter Ivanov, against Ivan Petrov inside this company.
And Dickfix wanted to attract attention to these offices so that there would be more liquidity within the company, otherwise it is just a regular sandbox.
Well, Rann is around, you can ask him, you can ask Renat, but I think the question will go unanswered.
ZS: this is classified information (c)
The scheme is simple. We make money on the difference in commissions and small marcups. In the case of matching clients, we only earn commission.
If two clients trade 1 lot of USDJPY with each other we earn $5. If one client traded and we took it out, we earned about the same, but due to the fact that we have a small markup and we pay less commission.
which forex is an over-the-counter exchange )
I do not think it's so complicated, it's simpler, do not withdraw anything and sit on banana islands.)
Not everything is easier.
You can lose clients. You need a serious dealing department, serious monitoring and analysis of client trades, arbitrageurs can kick you, etc. Not to mention the moral component when you and your clients are on opposite sides of the barricades.