Why does the price move? The answer is here!!! - page 25

New comment
 
Andrei01:
Who is the MM according to your model? Can you give me an example?

I don't know - I can't.

But the MM availability model answers my question of why the price falls when everyone is buying. And that's good enough for me so far!

 
KimIV:
I argue that MM drives the price where it is profitable. MM, by agreement with other MMs, with governments of countries, can temporarily take a loss, i.e. move the price against itself, but will surely win it back later, to his advantage.
The hypothesis is very controversial - MM may not win back because the interests of different MMs do not always coincide. Usually MMs are banks that execute the orders of their clients, and they are not always willing to risk their own money.
 
KimIV:

I don't know - I can't.

But the MM availability model answers my question of why the price falls when everyone is buying. And that's good enough for me so far!

So your model only states that the price goes where most funds go and that's all it explains?
 
KimIV:
What we are actually discussing here is the reasons for the price movement. I am arguing that the price is driven by MM to where it benefits. MM, by agreement with other MMs, with national governments, may temporarily take a loss, i.e. move the price against itself, but will surely win it back later, to his advantage.


how will he win back his hand? Look at this: every tick with MM contracts for bid and ask. So the peeple sells or buys. The difference between buying and selling changes his aggregate position. MM cannot force people to buy or sell, so when he needs to close his position to profit (for example, short) and according to you he will move quotes in the right direction (down), where is the guarantee that other market participants will sell more than buy? Because only then, if they predominantly sell, will his short pose shrink. They may well continue to buy, increasing MM's cumulative shorting. Especially given that not all participants are speculators and will necessarily cover their losses (and it may not be losses at all, but securing activity in other markets). This scheme can theoretically work if MM has more money available than all other participants combined.

That's why it is desirable for MM to balance near zero cumulative position or to manipulate in relatively small ranges. But sooner or later, he has to follow the general demand rather than against it. And most likely very early on))

 
Andrei01:
Buying and selling on the forex market is done through voluntary bids. Are you saying that some market participant is obliged to make a trade on an order that he did not submit?
Yes! I have had no problem with either buying or selling. Someone regularly sells to me and buys back from me. Kitchen, DC, Broker, Bank, MM... what do I care who does it? I don't believe in general chaos and that all transactions are uncontrolled, done as anyone wants. There is money here, big money... And consequently, it, its flows are being managed. Managed how? By quoting.
 

The price in the market is driven by the agreement of all market participants. In this sense, the market is in equilibrium at all times.

And all disagreements are in the spread, where the broker's commission is also "hidden", as is customary in forex.

 
KimIV:
Yes! I have had no problem with either buying or selling. Someone regularly sells to me and buys back from me. Kitchen, DC, Broker, Bank, MM... what do I care who does it?
Buying and selling does not always happen, but only if the prices in the bids match, so your assertion that someone is always obliged to execute your bids is generally incorrect.
 
Prolon:

The price on the market is driven by the agreement of all market participants. In this sense, the market is in equilibrium at any given time.

And all the disagreements are in the spread, and the broker's commission is "hidden" there as well, as it is customary in Forex.

Yep, except that I always disagree with all market participants - no matter how many orders are placed, market participants almost always push the price against me, I hope I'm the only one among the notorious 95% who lose ;) (my bad habits :) )

KimIV:There is money, big money... And therefore, they, their flows are being managed. Managed how? By means of quotations.
I also wrote on the 17th page that I do not believe that the crowd creates trends, but there are trends, even if they are based on history.
 
IgorM:

Yep, except that I always disagree with all market participants - no matter how you place orders the market participants are almost always pushing the price against me, I hope I'm the only one who lost ;) (ugh, ugh, ugh, I'm starting to talk to myself :) )

How can you not move the price, as the quote taker has plenty of options for organising a flush. The money is there - you just have to take it... Moreover, we work with one or two pairs:

EURCADconst = EURUSD ↑ * USDCAD ↓

EURCADconst = EURUSD ↓ * USDCAD ↑

EURCADconst = EURUSD const * USDCAD const

EURCAD↓ = EURUSD ↓ * USDCAD ↓

EURCAD↓ = EURUSD const * USDCAD ↓

EURCAD↓ = EURUSD ↓ * USDCAD const

EURCAD↑ = EURUSD ↑ * USDCAD ↑

EURCAD↑ = EURUSD const * USDCAD ↑

EURCAD↑ = EURUSD ↑ * USDCAD const


↑ - rate goes up

↓ - rate decreases.


And so on. A lot of variations are added if you start using double or even triple up or down

 
new-rena:

↑ - exchange rate rises (get - left to open SELL)

↓ - exchange rate goes down (get it - open BUY on the left)

The problem is not defined correctly, don't try to fool yourself, just call things by their proper names:

↑ - exchange rate was going up (get it - open SELL on the left)

↓ - exchange rate was falling (receipt - you had to open BUY on the left)

HH: at the tick level you can still make a decision to enter the market in the right direction based on the nearest history (last ticks), but the profit will only be equal to the spread, or even half of the spread
1...181920212223242526272829303132...36
New comment