NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 12
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
Timbo
А меня сегодня весь день мучает этот вопрос. Не то тут что то, постараюсь пояснить.
Ведь запрет если я правильно понял сделан для ДЦ. Что получается, это же технический вопрос. Давай допустим, что мы с тобой работаем через один ДЦ, и довольно крупными лотами.
Вопрос. Что делать ДЦ ? Как он меня перекроет ? если ему эта операция запрещена ?
З.Ы. многие рассматривают это заявление со стороны трейдера. Да это правильно и все логично, но вот если смотреть со стороны ДЦ, то что получается. ДЦ меня будет реквотить пока не сможет усредниться и (или) перекрыть, так что ли получается ? ((
Regarding only the brokerage companies on MT, only the total balance of all client positions, which is displayed in a separate line and recalculated at each tick, should overlap on the interbank. Theoretically it should hang around 0.
So the conclusion is inescapable - the lock is useful, it helps psychologically when trading manually, and when working with Expert Advisors several systems may work on one pair simultaneously.
When I started trading mcl I psychologically distrusted the robot, then I realised I couldn't trust myself))
>>: Several systems trading differently on one instrument is one imperfect system
And the example of two EAs, one of which is a long-term strategy, and the other is a short-term strategy, we prefer to ignore?
But the work of several independent strategies for one instrument, it is also a kind of hedging, diversification of risks, of course it is possible to realize it all within one EA, but it is not always easy. We could go further and completely reduce the "normal" hedging in forex, because the combination of long positions EURUSD and USDCHF can be simplified in the "trader's interest with the same reasoning" down to one long position EURCHF of the corresponding volume)
----
The trader, the less restrictions and more opportunities, the better. If you take care about "crazy losing traders" NFA should go further and give them correct/profitable predictions and signals, because after saying A it's logical to say B, so take care... )
----
It's all nonsense, just bringing order to the financial markets, less air trading, more transparency, easier control and regulation. Just why hide behind some kind of care? For whom is it meant? Do they think their traders are idiots? When will these clowns learn to call things by their proper names? I'm afraid never... Surely a reduction in traded derivatives is next, again dictated solely by concern).
I've gone over all your posts in this thread again. In case I haven't noticed anything. Not a single argument and/or example where lock is more profitable than a normal position close, except the phrase about "you have to 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.
In other words: locke is more favourable, and because it is an instrument in the first place, it is more convenient.
And whether or not this is an argument, or if someone doesn't understand it, is none of my business, right?
*
Hmmm... I'm not the commonplace truths like: a broker for our 10 roubles gives 100000 (hee-hee :)))
But about reality..:
- I guess we won't have to stick our necks out and prove that dealing has bank accounts in all the traded currencies
yen, francs, pounds, Zimbabwean kwochi and zaras ... ;)))) in order to "lend us money" while trading...
So explain to me, in plain accounting terms:
- Why is loc something phantom and evil, while phantom currencies are swapped?
*
Many people say that netting is the only right way and it is strictly according to accounting.
However, all these explanations end at the stage of crediting the result of the trade, and it is true, no doubt.
The trouble starts when you go higher, into the trading system itself, where no banker or dealer could ever justify
Why can't a client's one-currency account keep track of every transaction separately! After all, a computer programme can do a lot, if not everything.
Well yes, that's for sure. Derivatives of different orders of magnitude are the air that there are quadrillion dollars in the world.
If your account has 2 EAs with different strategies, you actually have one strategy. You need to recalculate the strategy within it.
I.e. if the long term one is buy with 2 lots and there is no hint of closing, and the short term one is sell with 1 lot, after recalculation you get
to close partially with 1 lot. After the short term close command you take a buy 1 lot.
What if there are not 2, but several Expert Advisors in the account?
And their number and composition are not constant?
несколько систем торгующих в разнобой на одном инструменте есть одна несовершенная система
Your point of view is clear - you only work on the trend. And then there's 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, you have to do it, there is no such thing in MT4.
What if the account has more than 2 advisors?
And their number and composition are not constant?
Try each one separately on a demo account
choose the best one
why bother?
run each one separately in demo accounts
pick the one that's best.
why bother?
:)
Give it to the cat ;)
What if the account has more than 2 advisors?
And their composition and number is not constant?
This doesn't change the point, but it makes it harder to recalculate