NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 13
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
USA, Iraq and so on....
First of all, there are no brokers in this market who as undertakers are never out of money
as long as there are a couple alive and getting their commission for brokering...
(And two clients will feed two brokers or even one... ;)))
*
Dealers who 'do us a favour', on the other hand, have a vested interest in our money!
I don't see anything wrong with that, for that is the specifics of the dealer's income and "pissed off"
It is the same as trying to blame the lottery "Sportlotto", which knowingly sells 99% of our money for failure...
*
Therefore, seeing the development of the platforms, and MT in particular, the recruitment of the customer base of experience and so more
The lottery is not about the level of revenue taken out of the dealer's pocket, hence reducing his income and paying tax to the treasury,
and the interests of the government and the dealers have finally converged on this topic...
In the words of the classics: Search out who benefits!
*
Iraq.
Of course... the oil, and with it the money...
And no more interests there, let alone any social ones.
Just like gangsters...
I forget NATO's borders and who is threatened there, but with this approach,
and with the whole world keeping its mouth shut, who knows where tomorrow the next shithole of democracy will start.
I have a hunch it will be in a commodity-producing region ... ;)
However, I am sick and tired of this pindosia. Let them rot there themselves, and live under the eye of big brother.
Your point of view is clear - you only work on the trend. And then there is the bounce, the breakdown, the volatility, the probabilities. I have several strategies in the micro to check, and some of the others. Should I open a separate account for each EA? This is not convenient. Do we need to create a common engine for working with orders? Well, we have to do it, because there is no such thing in MT4.
I am not working with a "trend" (I don't even know what a trend is and don't want to).
I have a Math model that works, for me the limitation is the processing power and the quantity of quotes as well as the liquidity of the market...
Hmmm... I'm not the platitudes like: a broker for our 10 rubles gives 100000 (hee-hee :)))
But about reality...:
- I don't think we need to go out of our way to prove that dealing has bank accounts in all the currencies traded
yen, francs, pounds, zimbabwean kwochi and zara... ;)))) in order to "lend us money" while trading...
>> so explain it popularly in accounting terms:
- Why is loc something phantom and evil, while phantom currencies are not even swapped and are good?
Why do you keep asking platitudes if they are obvious to you? All traded currencies are provided by the liquidity provider, there is nothing phantom. The DC itself has nothing, it is only an intermediary.
Lock is not evil, it is not smart and inconvenient. Lock allows you to open more positions than there is margin and creates unnecessary pressure on the market. Lock creates a potential opportunity for the client to screw the DC, and an excuse for the DC not to pay out money - NFA does not want such opportunities in the market. It's a nasty little mosquito buzzing around. So it's been swatted.
NFA has either mathematically well-founded data that the use of hedging can bring guaranteed profits to traders, or available to them the statistics show that this fact already takes place! Consequently, there is a high probability that the trader who comes to the market with such a strategy is guaranteed to "strip" someone. That's why they have made such a rule obligatory in order to prevent such events in the future.
If I had any prize for originality, I would give it to you for this idea.
Don't think so well of the NFA. They are not supermen, they are bureaucrats who have been given the task of reducing the volatility of the markets. Assuming everyone uses locks, banning locks halves the number of one-times open positions, i.e. halves volume for the same margin. NFA probably did not go further than this mathematics.
Well yes, that's for sure. Derivatives of different orders of magnitude are the very air of which there are quadrillion dollars in the world.
This is the air that has inflated the bubbles of the current crisis. Naturally, the number one objective is to reduce the pressure to prevent this from happening in the future, which the NFA is doing, among others, and very consistently.
a bit of enlightenment:
( disguised by the slogan of destroying weapons of mass destruction )
--- if to continue about loc
Canceling locs is not good for the locksmiths.
But the problem is easily solved by opening two accounts and splitting trade ( if by hand )
--
If you trade with an Expert Advisor there is no possibility to cancel a lock
you'd have to write a synchronization between the two programs which
there is no possibility to refuse from locks - locks will be given by one broker on one account and sold on another one.
technically it's solved
--
if one broker will prohibit to open more than two accounts
If you open two accounts at different brokers, you may buy from one and sell from the other
---
so it does not make much sense to abolish the loc
If you trade with an Expert Advisor, there is no possibility to refuse a loc
you need to write a synchronization between the two programs
will give buy on one account and sell on the other one
technically it is solved
--
If one broker prohibits the opening of more than two accounts
You open two accounts at different brokers, you can buy from one and sell from the other
---
so it does not make much sense to abolish the loc
Yes . But how much headache ... In general when designing MTS loc simplifies the logic, reduces the impact of force majeure "spikes", simplifies the accounting of trade orders, etc.
Yes . But how much headache...
i try not to use a lock
very seldom, for example, when a position goes down by 500-1000 pips i can open a long position, but it is more for psychological comfort
i wrote ( that after that i don't care where it will go as both positions have been taken to Breakeven and i have already closed the profit by entering the low
there is only a chance that the position will go higher or lower and the nearest order will be taken away
I may go to sleep for a weekend without worrying about gaps
)
within a small range the lot is not acceptable - if the position has not moved above 100p the lot is not used
i prefer to exit and enter by movement if i missed
And why are you asking platitudes again if it's a truism for you? All traded currencies are provided by the liquidity provider, there is nothing phantom about it. The DC itself has nothing, it is only an intermediary.
Lock is not evil, it is not smart and inconvenient. Lock allows you to open more positions than there is margin and creates unnecessary pressure on the market. Lock creates a potential opportunity for the client to screw the DC, and an excuse for the DC not to pay out money - NFA does not want such opportunities in the market. It's a nasty little mosquito buzzing around. So it's been swatted.
Yeah... so there is no answer to that uncomfortable question after all...
;)
The liquidity provider, upstream but not downstream by the way, provides the same
the DC to the client: the exchange rate of the currency pair and the possibility to make a transaction on it...
>>. 1. To make transactions on behalf of the dealing. 2. For the same amount of money.
So where is the money? The same for which they charge interest in the form of a swap.
*
Well... If you try, you'll get a loss so fast.
And that's only possible in a brokerage house where the margin = 0.
The "increase" of the number of positions can be seen only on the end client's side, and on the first one
In other words, in the brokerage company this is the total position, in the full lock 0 or the difference in volumes.
... I don't see problems with understanding and calculations...
*
I personally don't care much about the US markets.
They have blown a financial bubble on everything, why should I personally suffer from it
and retrain as nettings people and think about changing trading platforms???
(If MT5 will really become a grey nettop, of which there are hundreds...)
I try not to use the back door
i very seldom, for example, when a position retraces by 500-1000 pips i may open a long position, just for psychological comfort
i wrote ( that i don't care which way the position will go as both positions have been taken to breakeven and i have already taken a profit by entering the long position
there is only a chance that the position will go higher or lower and the nearest order will be pulled down
i may go to bed and leave positions for weekend without worrying about gaps
)
i dont like to use the small range - if the position has not gone below 100 pips i dont use the lock
i prefer to exit and go in on the move if i missed
And I simply follow the pose by a short pending order - if the link goes bad the maximal loss is a pending order withdrawal, if the force majeure spike against the pose - the same story, and the pose flip goes by the signal.