NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 7
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
And who claims that lock is always = 0 ?
Spit in his eyes and throw a stone at him...
;)))
I argue that lock always = 0 without taking into account overheads, and always less than zero because of spreads and swap differences.
In response I get only spits, stones and promises of volumes (at first there were only pages, but then sprawled) of description, no other arguments the locksmiths have.
Trading lots, on which MT is based (and not only MT) equates a position to a trade.
Then what prevents me from buying a sack of potatoes No.1 at 50p in the bazaar and periodically selling
part of another sack of #2 up to the full amount of #1 when the price goes down?
While staying in temporary / price position on the chart with a sack of #1 which I will finally sell
(i.e. close the position) at the desired time and price...
My understanding is that bag number 2 sells short. So at some point it will equalize with bag #1 and that very moment will mean that bag #1 has already been sold, i.e. there can be no talk about "at the time and price I need...". What's the difference with selling out of bag #1 straight away?
Yes! With the introduction of netting we'll also dance with the account history... brrrr... it's scary to think about...
Some beginnings in this direction can share the joy of DC customers with rollover right now.
;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ask them, don't be shy...
Ask me for example. A spot sale for many Assets means a settlement the next day. If there is more than one trade during the day, the report is a mess. There are no individual orders-positions, only an aggregate position. Often, the only way to understand if the current trade is profitable or not is Equity. Welcome to the real world, Neo.
Lock is such a toy for 6-point lovers. The lock allows you to keep the balance line nice and flat, while the equity is already seriously depressed. It is a kind of psychological void - "I have not made a loss until I close an unprofitable position".
Who says the ban is aimed at the DCs? The ban is aimed at their clients.
http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/newsNotice.asp?ArticleID=2273
A decent brokerage company puts every trade of its clients on the market. If one opens 50 buy and the other 50 sell, that's how it will be. Both positions will be put on the market. The brokerage company does not keep its own positions; the brokerage company is not a trader and the ban does not apply to it.
The lock allows you to open a position much larger than what is allowed for normal positions. You have a grand in your account, you open one lot of buy, and immediately you open another lot of sell. Because this means that the position is effectively covered, no second margin is taken and moreover even the first margin can be partially released. This means that you can open another position. What happens afterwards has already been discussed on the forum - this is called dealing with a brokerage company.
On the other hand, an honest brokerage company must enter each transaction in the market and this means an increase in volatility only because someone quietly admires the balance chart. What's the point?
This ban is just the beginning of the tightening of the screws that will go through all markets. The same FX broker is already being forced to make bigger deposits. Everything will be aimed at making the market more stable.
The situation is moronic and delusional. You can have GBP/JPY - Buy, USD/JPY - buy, GBP/USD - sell. Call it a hedge or a lock. You may call it a coincidence in trading of 3 strategies. And how should this be considered? In what programmes? Any cross can be placed into a lock or into a hedge using two other pairs. In futures, it's even easier - there are several contracts for oil. On gas, it's a mini and a standard one, like on the others. Contracts of the same instrument are traded on different exchanges.
The situation is moronic and delusional. You can have GBP/JPY - Buy, USD/JPY - buy, GBP/USD - sell. Call it a hedge or a lock. You may call it a coincidence in trading of 3 strategies. And how should this be considered? In what programmes? Any cross can be placed into a lock or into a hedge using two other pairs. In futures, it's even easier - there are several contracts for oil. On gas, it's a mini and a standard one, like on the others. The contracts of one instrument are traded on different exchanges.
The delusional situation of having buy and sell on ONE instrument at the same time is a lock, which was incorrectly called hedge. Everything else is fine. Using different instruments allows for hedging, no one has forbidden real hedge.
This is a hedge but not a lock. The total collateral for opening these three positions will be the sum of the three collateral corresponding to each position, not as in a lock.
...
the locksmiths have no other arguments.
This is so familiar... it's like diving into a recent thread on one forum... ;)
If my writing, which mind you do NOT even claim to be arguments, just simple... let's say facts
are not even a consideration... then maybe you shouldn't be so adamant about being right...
Because the only argument of nettiengists is 0. That's it! There is NO other argument and there can be NO other argument!!!
*
As an example of the "incomprehensibility of loc," its strict ZERO,
explain the other thing then..: "where does what come from" is an area of accounting...
You're saying that locke is accounting zero, right?
Ahem... And then where does the DC, and more importantly where are the items recorded in the sections of
the real ones that don't exist are 100,000 euros and sold for 12900,000 yen?
Phantom? they are really 0 too, right? what is the swap charged for then? 0?
;)))
Lock is such a toy for lovers of the sixth point. Lock allows to keep balance line nice and smooth, at the time when equity is already seriously falling down. It is a kind of psychological rubbish - "I have not suffered loss until I close losing position".
Excuse me, who here is claiming that the lock is just waiting by the sea...??
First, the lock, like trading, must be used properly, at the right time.
Second, lock is the same tool as an underbarrel grenade launcher, use it or not,
but the machine doesn't change its purpose...
In the third, well not for the life of me not to believe in the need for the use of positive locking and his mods.
NOT FOR LIFE... !!!
Yes! It makes the DTCs sick, but not the traders... ;)))
Selling spot for a lot of Assets means settlement the next day.
ah... in Russian...?
If there are more than one trade during the day, then the report is a mess.
Who has less than one?
The presence of one transaction is not a sign of professionalism,
nor is more than one a sign of unprofessionalism...
Welcome to the real world, Neo.
er... if there was a will to mess around with those scrappy reports that are generated by the nettoplatform,
would probably have discovered the "real world" years ago... there's no problem with that...
And I'll be honest, I've been trying, trying for years to get the hang of this crap, but apparently I'll only accept it on pain of being shot.
;)))) and a daily one at that...
All you get in return are spits, stones and promises of volumes (at first there were only pages, but then sprawling) of description, no other arguments the locksmiths have.
You are already blatantly fudging and twisting.... It's not clear... What spitting? What stones? Who promised you what? And why do you claim there is no argument? After all, I suggested to you specifically (and I remind you of this in the second post already): to compare our practical results! It is hard to find a stronger argument for your positions! But you stubbornly ignore this suggestion. Apparently, it somehow irritates you. I can guess - why. Theoretical, all the more so, as bezapely as yours, reasoning without confirmation by practice or comparison of practices is a fluff, a fart in space.
Stones and spits, alas, are now deserved. I will explain why... A newcomer, when he enters the world of trading, reads many forums, this one included. First of all, he, she, pays attention to posts written with absolute confidence, so to speak, with knowledge. They do not know how to sift out gibberish, but they absorb everything they see, just as a child puts all kinds of filth in his or her mouth and then has diarrhea. You are doing more damage to newbies with your self-righteous postings than the brokerage companies will do to them by crushing their deposits. First, you have to study the topic under discussion, sleep on it more than one night, suffer like a child from knowledge and respond with a deposit. Only it will tell you the quality of your knowledge. If you haven't completed the same locks and they "sucked" you in, it doesn't give you the right, somehow even painfully, to assert: "Ok, I have learned the TRUTH, locks are rubbish!" Sorry, but so far your limit: "I have failed with lots, too complicated and I find it easier to work with stops." The art of owning locks is an order of magnitude higher than that of stops, I understand. But nothing is impossible. I sincerely hope that this tool, as well as all the others, will be within your reach. Forgive me, now for my, a little bit of presumptuousness... I've just had enough of that and of the newbies, and it's just sad... Sincerely wishes you good luck in comprehending the market and mastering the art of trading!
There is nothing to master here. Diversification is a scientifically proven fact. Lock, as well as martingale, leads to ruin. We use random events, some early and some late, but the result is the same.
I laughed for a long time. The same level of officials at the NFA must be sitting there. I can see why, in spite of all the restrictions and regulations, fraud is so common in Pindosia.
Folks, tell me where I am wrong:
1. Bought for $1, closed for $2. Orders are not hanging.
2. Bought at $1, sold at $2. Orders are hanging. This depends on the politics of the kitchen: whether more margin is required, whether commissions are taken, etc. But in most cases - "close overlapped" and the result is the same. No 2x spreads.
Thirdly, I don't believe in the uselessness of positive lock and its mods.
Not for real... !!!
Yes! It makes the DTs sick, but not the traders... ;)))
I cannot understand why positive locking is better than usual profit taking, i.e. trivial position closing. In what way? I have the impression that the reason is purely psychological: we seem to be in the market, but do not depend on its movements. Yes, brokerage companies pant and sweat, but we do not really care.
And what do we use the positive lock for? Well, of course, in order to increase this paper profit at a convenient time (what else?). It seems to us that if we're already in the market, we will save time to react to its movements and destroy the lock.
However, in my opinion, this is self-deception. Instead of initially just closing the position we were locking in the plus instead and concentrating on finding new entries, we fix our attention on two positions and actually look for the same thing. But if price goes up and we are sure of that, in the absence of a lock-in we would just open a buy, but here with a lock-in we will cover a sell. We think we will do it better from the current lock than in the absence of the open positions. Of course, we think that it is easier to close the sell when we are in the market than to open a new buy. And where are the reasons for this conclusion - other than psychological ones? How is opening a new position more difficult or worse than closing an existing one?
OK, let's look at the negative lock. It seems that Masterforex tried to prove the advantage of such a lock over a stop. It seems that the only more or less decent reason is stop loss protection. But if you look at it more closely, it turns out to be nothing more than overstaying - only the drawdown on the position is not growing, but canned. We put off executing stop orders on positions, hoping for better times. But better times may not come for a long time - just as long as we would look for entry into a new position if there were no lock-in, and all positions were closed.
The net result of locking a position is exactly the same as when closing it. The difference is that we postpone the change of the account balance.
For a negative lock-up everything is clear: we do not want to see a decrease in equity. Is decrease of equity less significant for the account?
But for the positive what? Probably, the desire to gain a foothold in the acquired equity territory. But we can gain a foothold even better if we simply close the profitable position!
Folks, tell me where I'm wrong:
1. Bought at $1, closed at $2. Orders are not hanging.
2. Bought at $1, sold at $2. Orders are hovering. This depends on the politics of the kitchen: whether more margin is required, whether commissions are taken, etc. But in most cases - "close overlapped" and the result is the same. No 2 spreads.
Not a mistake anywhere. Everything is correct. Point 1 applies to normal brokerage houses. Point 2 only applies to shitty kitchens. NFA doesn't want kitchens to exist because kitchens are unstable and client-problematic - if clients start making money, the kitchen either stupidly doesn't pay or goes bankrupt and still doesn't pay.