NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 8
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
This is all so familiar... It's like diving into a recent thread on one forum... ;)
If my writings, 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...
For the nettienists' only argument is 0. That's it! There is NO other argument and there CANNOT be one!
*
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?
;)))
Once again went through all your posts in this thread. In case I missed something. You haven't offered a single argument and/or example where lock is more profitable than a normal position closing, apart from the phrase about "one must know how to use it", which is not an argument.
I explain the "other": 100,000 EUR is borrowed at market interest for EUR and sold for Yen, which is invested at market interest for Yen. The difference between the deposit interest and the debt interest amounts to a swap, which may be positive or negative depending on the interest rate differential between the two currencies.
You are already blatantly falsifying and distorting... 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 bezapely as yours, reasoning without confirmation by practice or comparison of practices is rubbish, a fart in space.
You mean we're going to measure each other's pips? Mine is obviously longer, yours is obviously deeper. How does this affect trading?
Once again, please give me an example of a trading strategy using a loc that would demonstrate its advantage over a trivial close. That would be an argument. Leave the "art of trading" tales for the poor and uneducated.
If you need to close a position (not a small one) a partial lock, a partial lock ;)
The only difference is that the brokers are shallow and the slippery sloppy ones. The only thing I know for sure is that the margins there will be small.
P.s. You're shouting about the kitchens (NFA is struggling) - and nothing will change.
Your "Powerful Power" does not want to rule with other countries and agree on a single law.
There is no interbank, there are trading interbank systems, where the devil knows what they are doing. The banks do not have any sense to connect with DCs, not their calibre - the necessary amount of liquidity is eaten up by the foreign exchange market of the home country. (The white scheme for banks is atrocious).
Shit ! If there was an interbank foreign exchange market - all these companies should have received a DC license long time ago.
The higher the broker's turnover - the less he cares about counter. agents - nobody cares at all, clients are self-locking inside the kitchen. In some rare exceptions they get rid of them. Same dumb example several brokerage companies merged into network and make dough among themselves.
NFA got fined once for advertising - they made no slips, but they slipped and took a payoff in good manners :)
I cannot understand why a positive lock is better than a normal profit taking, i.e. trivial closing of a position. 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.
You do not understand. You think that trading is mathematics and statistics, but in fact it's an art. Even if it is an art for the fooled by Taleb.
If you need to close a position (not a small one) a partial lock, a partial lock ;)
The only difference is that the brokers are shallow and the slippers are shallow. The only thing I know for sure is that the margins are shallow.
One thing is for sure they have small margins but I'm not interested in "the nice ones".
To say that lock is a no-brainer is incorrect (to put it mildly).
It is one of many trading methods. And it has the right to exist, just like any other trading method!
And to declare that the lots "donot make any sense" (- 1 page branch), it's like saying that (for example) trade on the indicator STOCHASTIC - absurd, because when the trend is a loss. And therefore stochastic should be banned!
//-------------------------------------------------------
Not at all... There's no need to ban either locs or stochastics. Just think about who benefits from these bans. And everything becomes clear.
But Timbo doesn't seem to hear other people's arguments.
But he makes his own, like "Selling spot for a lot of assholes means settlement the next day." (quote from page 6), which one in 100 visitors understand. But, which at first glance looks very solid!
Huh! a diver is a non-targeted opening and a hedge is the opposite.
Good logic... nothing to say...
Nevertheless - it is. In a general way.
Theorems are good... But at the very least they require practical proof,
But the current practice is already a rather successfully exploited reality...
Show me this very successful existing practice. Show me if you can. And not as an isolated case, but as a mass phenomenon.
How is lock a non-market instrument?
And who claims that lock is always = 0 ?
Spit in the eye and throw a stone at him.
No need to appear stupider than you really are. It's simple maths.
Lot trading, on which MT (and not only) is based, equates a position to a trade.
Then what prevents me in the bazaar to buy a sack of potatoes ¹ 1 in the long 50 r. and periodically sell
part of another sack of #2 fries up to the full amount of #1 when the price goes down?
At the same time staying on a temporary / price position on the chart with a sack of number 1, which I will finally sell
(i.e. close a position) at the right time and price...
If you want to sell something you don't need, you must first buy it. Even cats know that.
Yeah! With the introduction of netting, we're gonna have to deal with account history... >> brrrrr... I can't even think about it.
Some beginnings in this direction may share the joy of DC clients with the rollover now.
;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ask them, don't be shy...
That's nonsense, look closely at your current balance and it will show you everything.
So we're going to measure each other's dicks? I'm knowingly longer, you're knowingly deeper. How does this affect trading?
Once again, please give me an example of a trading strategy using a loc that would demonstrate its advantage over a trivial close. That would be an argument. Leave the "art of trading" tales for the poor and uneducated.
Well, bon vivian reveals... Nothing to hide but rudeness... Cheap... By the way, Peacock, I didn't poke you.
No, I was suggesting that you and I compare the results of our practice as the strongest arguments that set the record straight in any argument, using different trading tactics - with and without locks. You mentioned that you are a real trader, so I thought you were a real trader and not another egomaniac. You write: ... "I've grown out of minimum depots..." I still do, due to my meagerness. I'm sorry that my suggestion caused you, in some incomprehensible way, painful thoughts of the wrong kind.
Your counter-proposal to "measure up" is not entirely clear. It wasn't even a hint. Explain, please... Which way to look at it?