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
Forex "brokers" decent and indecent, they mostly live off of losing deposits.
I would add - they live off the deposits we make. Not just on the spread. Our deposits are free money for the broker. We don't have to pay annual interest on them because they are not borrowed funds. And you don't have to charge interest on the deposit. A good business model indeed. But we are (supposedly) mutually interested ? Is the interest decent or indecent?
I would add - they live off the deposits we make. Not just on spreads. Our deposits are free money for the broker. You don't have to pay annual interest on them, because they are not borrowed funds. And you don't have to charge interest on the deposit. A good business model indeed. But we are (supposedly) mutually interested ? Is the interest decent or indecent ?
It's only in extreme dumps where segregated accounts are not practiced
The difference between playing against other players or playing against a casino.
For many, it's a significant difference.
You know what a lock is?
one loses to the other, that's the system
It's a condition for its existence: buying equals selling.
There are other options.
but history is silent ;)
The difference in playing against other players or playing against a casino.
For many, it's a significant difference.
Seven years of casino experience - I know the difference
You know what a lock is?
one loses to the other, that's the whole system.
the prerequisite for its existence: buying equals selling.
there are other options.
but history is silent on that ;)
Don't try to answer the context taken out of thought - the whole post is one question.
In this case the question is precisely that if orders are not taken to interbank and there are not enough lots to pay for profits, then who pays for the profits? After all, the size of a profit is not limited to the size of a lock.
Don't try to answer the context taken out of thought - the whole post is one question.
In this case the question is: if the orders are not moved to the interbank and there are not enough lots to pay for the profit, then who pays for the profit? After all, the size of a profit is not limited to the size of a lock.
This will work well if the support for the paper on the fall below is strong enough. What if the price falls back down again after a while? Do we still buy ?
I usually do not deal with cutlets, I always have some free funds, I use averaging, not marting and only within my funds. If I deal with cutlet, of course I use stop.
In addition, usually entry points are at levels with large volume, most often there is a reversal.
I had a bad entry on Surgutneftegaz and I have been standing since 2018, I averaged it, I already withdrew dividends amounting to 40% of the asset... One year 20% second 20% third not so much, but with large volume 40% is significant.
In fact you don't even need to trade 20% per annum is very good in the stock market.
Surgutneftegaz keeps a lot of its funds in foreign currency, they are great as diversification.
Hand trading can be simulated using Python and the pyautogui library