NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 2
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
Right, back to the home kitchens of the Soviet Union, where everything is allowed except making money.
Of course, they prohibit lots, or rather overlapping positions, which do not make any sense except loss of spread. The solution is a serious increase of margin requirements for brokerage companies, removal of exceptions in the section about margin for each open deal. I.e. as a result brokerage companies will be more stable and reliable, clients' money will be safer.
So what is the fuss about?
My personal "noise" because of such new trends, or rather brooms (like Weinik :)) from the USA
The usability of the long awaited MT5 is in great danger...
*
Locking in MT is a purely voluntary tool for a trader, and netting is a compulsory one.
So it's more of a sovok thing now in the USA than in any other country...
(Although I suspect that many people have not even seen that notorious Soviet Union to talk about it so arrogantly ;)))
*
Will the brokerage companies be stable and reliable??? Don't make me laugh...
The question is how high the percentage of thievery and greed of the owners.
And only a small, purely statistical value of professionalism proper... which will have its figure anyway.
*
We should not forget about lobbying of dealers to make life of traders as difficult as possible
with such "trump cards" in their hands, even if they're also covered in legislation...
*
These people are strange...
Loki means they've got their backs to them, but there's a lot of indignation and "voting with their feet" on the
the introduction of the five digits, the limitation to 120 seconds of position holding time, etc..
NO SEEING, NO HEARING ... SILENT... ah... ... (the usual echo echo :)))
But we'll sing and dance to the fucking pandemic... yeah?
Of course, it is forbidden for lots, i.e. overlapping positions which do not make any sense apart from loss of spread. The decision is in line with a serious increase in the collateral requirements for brokerage companies and removal of exceptions in the section about collateral for each open trade. I.e. as a result brokerage companies will be more stable and reliable, clients' money will be safer.
+5
So what is the noise about?
My "noise" is due to the fact that now we will have to re-do the EAs for this innovation, because if there is more than one
If you have a single account, each EA has to take into account whether there are any open positions in the instrument for which the signal was received.
The 5th sign has added a lot of pain, and now this "joy".
.
You may as well limit the maximum trading lot to 5 or 10% of the deposit "for the trader's benefit and protection".
Why not? I think the real benefit would be not less and the number of lost deposits due to non-compliance with the MM
. it is less than that because of lots.
.
The real reason of the prohibition of losing lots I see in the fact that they were often used by scalpers as a formal disguise, i.e. to get around
Limit in 120 sec. For example, we have a 1-2p profit on a pips position, but 120 sec have not come out - you cannot cover the profit.
Exit: We open a counter (lot), wait 5-10 or more minutes and close the counter. Spread in this case is not lost compared to
The real reason of the prohibition of lots is that they were often used by scalpers to formally disguise themselves, i.e. to bypass the possibility to close positions before expiration of 120 seconds.
My "noise" is due to the fact, for example, that I will now have to redesign the EAs for this innovation, as if there is more than one running
If there are no open positions in one account, each Expert Advisor has to take into account whether or not there are any open positions in the instrument for which the signal was received.
The 5th sign has added a lot of pain, and now this "joy".
This should have been done a long time ago. If one Expert Advisor says you should buy and another one says you should sell, then it would be wise not to do anything - you will save two Wednesdays and the difference in swaps. That is, you should be grateful to the NFA for encouraging you to make a painful but necessary change of strategy.
I agree that in their attempts to protect dummies, NFA and others often create additional problems. But the original intent is unequivocally good. And the implementation in this case is not the worst either.
No, market execution of stops and profits is dangerous. Stops are executed with slippage, profits with price.
How else could they be executed? It is the only possible and universally honest way. Any other options are just fantasies about the market.
Запрещают, естественно, локи, вернее перекрывающиеся позиции, которые не несут никакого смысла кроме потери спреда...
If you don't know how to use this trading technique, then yes, of course, there is no point. It is those who do know how to use it that are being shut out. And apparently they can do it very well, judging by the MFA's reaction... Amerian colleagues reported that they are going to open additional ersatz-lock accounts, on a 1:4 basis, but I don't think it's a panacea. It was safer to lock on one account for the very client's money that MFA allegedly cares so much about.
I.e. as a result the brokerage companies will be more stable and reliable, clients' money will be safer.
That's capitalism with a human face :). Let me remind you that this is the market, and the big boys are interested in my money! But MFA stood up to defend me from these bastards with all their breasts and explained how profitable it was to work with stops! True, it is beneficial ... but to whom? It's the locking that manages to dodge the picking of stops by small and medium sized players by the big financial boys and come out of them with profits. Our stops are a source of constant income for these guys, and their profits have fallen lately (greed in general is infinite). A trader who has such a luxurious tool as locking in his hands still has to chase the money. They are tired! They sweat! Uncomfortable! What if the trader opens the lock on a straightforward movement that they cannot control! The money will be gone. We had to get in touch with the "clients"! Well, MFA, at the request of the sweating customers! It's made the job a lot easier. Now just look at the screen and watch the stops pile up. It's hayride season! But there's one more inconvenience: how do you know when there are no more stops and it's time to chop? Well, that's okay, the MFA will help....
So I suspect that the rejection of counter trades in MT5 (although it's not really clear how this can be done) is from the same series of providing benefits for DCs... oops! for traders, of course!
Exit: open a counter (lock), wait 5-10 minutes or more and close the counter. The spread is not lost compared to
There, it is called "synthetic lock" ;* but if we want to close it before 120 seconds expiration, then it cannot be referred to scalping.
I haven't read all of them, but all of them have the mention of time in their extension.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's called "synthetic lock" ;)
*
The road to hell is paved with good intentions... (с)
Unequivocally. Any prohibition of this kind is for the benefit of the DC and to the detriment of the client!
And I think it is outright hypocrisy to claim that it is done "for the good of the client"!
As it was stated some time ago, increasing night spreads for crosses - to "optimize trading tactics, systematize and benefit traders".
With lots it's the same situation