Why have subscriptions been banned on the grounds of "too high a yield" ? - page 69
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
don't twist it.
The phrase was "the moment is murky and is used by unscrupulous companies".
You can only tell how dishonest a company is by looking at its slippage statistics. Who slips more often and farther, is not a dartan.
The fact is that he does not deny that they do so, and equates this with dishonest behaviour, even if not consciously.
ZS: of course I'm picking on you.
To attract liquidity providers from traders, the commission for placing limiters should be lower than for trading on the market.
the fact is that he does not deny that they do so, and equates this point with bad faith, even if not consciously.
you're getting hung up on something.
What exactly is he not denying? That they're slipping after the supplier? And what's criminal about that? Nobody's going to take your losses.
It's criminal if they slip harder than the supplier, but it's hard to understand. You can only draw conclusions from statistics.
Yeah, limiters are money, but what are mercs, medical cotton?
you're getting hung up on something.
What exactly is he not denying? That they're slipping after the supplier? What's so criminal about that? No one is going to take your losses.
It's criminal if they slip harder than the supplier, but it's hard to understand. You can only draw conclusions from statistics.
I read the newsletters, thanks to Renat for the information in general. I think they are doing it as a PR campaign and not more and it seems to me that in this way they would create a bad reputation and attract more people.
P.S. I traded on the site Fx Open for the last six months, but taking into account the machinations they perpetrate, the limit of confidence in them now is zero.
that's it, chill out )
yeah, i'm kinda not warmed up :)
...
P.S last half a year I traded on Fx Open, but considering the machinations they do, their credibility limit is now zero.
Limiters are liquidity in the market.
Cap?
Well, let them sit in the glass and wait for execution, they are not broadcasting their office limits outward.
Liquidity is not in the cup. Liquidity is liquidity.
)), don't you look at the reports?
ZS: When you move a position it seems that the fee for the use of borrowed funds is deducted.
On FORTS there is no leverage as such (i.e. the relationship between own and borrowed funds). There is a concept of GO (guaranteed collateral), or collateral in simple terms.
When we buy a futures on Sberbank we are not buying the stock itself, we are only entering into a contract under which our counterparty will pay us the difference between the future value of the Sberbank stock and the current value. In order to guarantee our obligations, the exchange locks in part of our funds. The ratio between the value of the pledged funds and the value of the asset is called leverage, so if the RTS is worth 100,000 rubles, and the exchange charges 10,000 rubles for the pledge, then the maximum possible leverage available for our account will be 1:10. However, this does not cost us anything, because in reality we do not buy the RTS for 100,000 roubles, but only pay a 10,000 rouble deposit to enter into a contract for it.