NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 14
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
? Lock creates potential possibility for client to cheat brokerage company and for dealer not to pay
Timbo, explain how?
in the example of
SELL eurusd 1.6000
buy eurusd 1.2400
close both orders at 1.4000
what is the problem with the dc?
--
in this situation how and why I will cheat brokerage company
( if I took profit on condition that dealer is not a gambling operation )
If I took profit in the situation ( if I still took it from brokerage company - if it is a front company then all my profits, including SWING, may be considered as - defrauding from my side )
The most interesting thing in this situation, for what reason I can not pay (again, not a gadget)
--
i mean if this is a kitchen, the profit in the kitchen is cheating from my side ... whether with locks or swings...
And I'm stupidly following the pose with a short pivot - if the link breaks the max loss - pivot back, if the force majeure rolls against the pose - same story, with the pose reversal going on the signal.
well, if the lock helps... just go to a broker that has locks
of course it's an inconvenience...
but you can trade without the lock.
divide the signals flow for one instrument into two accounts
of course it is a hassle to keep track of Take Stops, i.e. treat two accounts as one!
this is a complication of the Expert Advisor - but it is solvable.
--
I will trade in two accounts and ban lots.
The liquidity provider, superior but not yet marginal by the way, provides the same
What the DC to the client: the exchange rate of a currency pair and the possibility to make a transaction on it...
The dealer has to 1. carry out his own transactions on behalf of the dealer. 2. For all the same funnies.
So where is the money? The same money for which they take a swap.
DC is not a trader, he does not make transactions. The liquidity provider operates with real money that costs interest, or with derivatives that replace real money and cost exactly the same interest. The interest is collected/paid to/from the DC, which broadcasts it to the client. The liquidity provider does not make money on client drains, it only makes money on interest and commission. By the way, a normal DC also doesn't make money on drains, only on commission via spreads, plus possibly their own swap mark-up - i.e. buys in bulk, sells in bulk. The answer is that the liquidity provider has the money.
run each one separately in demo accounts
pick the one that's best.
Why go for it?
In general, the subject of mixing is a separate topic.
From all known examples for clarity, take Bettinger at the championship before last, he had three in one, I will assume that they are similar, but not so much to choose one out of three
No matter how many strategies are involved, even in different accounts, it all ends up being one strategy, the result of which will fill your purse.
there is no sense to combine similar strategies together, if they have significant differences in efficiency, in this case, you should choose the best.
the only goal of combination may be the most effective use of the deposit.
the first one is good in Japanese session, the second one in European, the third one in American.
each one decides for himself what can be combined
Timbo, explain how ?
For example like this. With a loco on a minimum deposit, a huge position is opened up and down at the same time. When the market opens, there is a gap, say, up. The up position is closed at profit with no slippage and the down position is closed at stop with slippage (why exactly that happens I already said before) - or rather MK that exceeds the deposit size. As a result the brokerage company has a loss not covered by client's margin.
For example like this. Using a loco on a minimum deposit, an enormous position is opened up and down at the same time. When the market opens, there is a gap, say, upwards. The up position is closed at profit without slippage and the down position is closed at stop with slippage (why exactly that happens I have already said before) - or rather MK that exceeds the deposit size. As a result the brokerage company has a loss not covered by client's margin.
We may as well open positions on the spot and futures - the instruments are different and the result is the same. Or in two accounts. So it doesn't matter for dealing. Or we can introduce more restrictions.
You might as well open positions on the spot and the futures - the instruments are different but the result is the same. Or in two accounts. I.e. the dealing desk doesn't care. Or we should introduce even more restrictions.
The positions on different accounts or instruments will be charged with the full margin. The lock on one instrument on one account will not. Respectively, the result will be different for brokerage companies.
By the way, there will be a lot of restrictions. Loki is only the beginning. To be more exact, they have already begun, but they are related only to brokerage companies that is why there is no noise. One of restrictions - increased requirements for funds for the opening of brokerage companies, i.e. many small companies will have to leave the market. At least from the American stage, i.e. expect a new wave of opening of kitchens in unregulated countries. But there are bound to be other restrictions as well.
Since the decision has already been made at the top level, someone will have to adapt in one way or another.
http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/3227105/
http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2422399/
DC is not a trader, he doesn't make his trades.
What are you talking about...
he must be the market itself :)))
*
The DCs in the whole chain up to the top are just as interconnected as
The client and the DC are interconnected because the market is dealer's!
Are we going to argue about that too?
*
Trading in two accounts and prohibition of lots is not important.
If we had the possibility to develop our own software, we wouldn't give a damn about the regulators from the National Federation!
It's as easy as pie in the logic of combining two accounts...;)
*
One simple example: one net DC, two accounts #1 and #2, combining terminal type MT.
Account number 1 is priority, it means that the first positions are opened on it...
Then it depends on the trade, if there is no position opened on the 1-st, it is passed to the 2-st.
if (SymbolPos >1) Open Vol in Acc2; //
etc...
In the terminal everything will be displayed as usual, but technical additional fields like #account
if the trader wants to see them or not...
*
The principle of separate and generalized reporting is not a problem.
And if we have GeneralMagic, it will accept the ticket value at position opening and pass it
and passing it by inheritance at rollovers till closing, it is possible to design usual МТ reports.
Where the entire trade is written in one understandable line instead of a mess of Dills...
*
By the way, this is a subtle hint for the developers, if they finally decided to abolish the direct locking.
A tiny little module like this would both comply with the decision of the US Communist Party Central Committee and not offend the current MT users...