Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - 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
An ECN is an analogue of a stock exchange. Or do you think it is a kitchen technology?
The purpose of the network is analogous to a trading platform such as MT.
The only difference is that clients are liquidity providers...
Basically, currency ECNs are not ECNs at all... ...but it's the same as for stock ECNs...
So exactly what is kitchen technology called...
The purpose of the network is analogous to a trading platform such as MT.
The only difference is that clients are liquidity providers...
Basically, currency ECNs are not ECNs at all... relative to the idea for stock ECNs.
Well, what else does the exchange provides purely technically? It is clear that the clearing is different, the maintenance of paper accounts, etc. In fact, the exchange market is an opportunity for clients freely find a counterparty and be a liquidity provider. The logic behind the exchange and ECN is to have a common slab of orders and bring them together. And MT4 is purely for client<->DC trading.
The misunderstanding is snowballing. You know MQL5 quite well. Try to write a simple MT5 strategy that will work independently from the others. Perhaps, you will encounter some pitfalls. If you will succeed it will be very cool: the branch will loose its relevance at once.
I'm busy with an article at the moment. Then a holiday. Probably afterwards. We'll see, though.
I thought long and hard before I came up with this option, but I can't think of anything better.
I can see the rake, and I think I've already solved it. We shall see.
At least theoretically (as I still think unproven) this way solves the problem:
1. with lots
2. with aggregate stops.
3. with multiple EAs -- importantly -- without the need to combine them.
))) >> >> >> the caravan is tired.
MetaQuotes has done everything RIGHT, except for one thing. This is not a technical issue on which you colleagues cannot agree, it is a legal and accounting issue. I will clarify it now, colleagues:
1. You could hear the rebuke "MT4 is a toy" in relation to MT4. It lacked a lot to compete with others. True to its positioning as a free for retail-forex entry level tool MT4 had a simplistic opening-closing-accounting system which was not true FX, but something like a swap (or option under some assumptions) where you MUST close a position to get money back. Banks don't work that way, they have MULTIPLE currencies, correspondent accounts in many currencies, and you don't have to close positions at all.
2. For a modern terminal which trades stocks - as a perspective for MT5 - positions do not need to be closed either.
3. metaquotes, making MT5 closer to a pro tool, removed the aggregate position because that would lower the class of the terminal and narrow the scope of its application. The implication is that the trader on MT5 will have his own back office to keep track of positions. Of course, colleagues, all of you will have to write such a script-advisor, or maybe even an INDICATOR, which will do the work that MT4 did before.
The Metacquotes are partly right here, but they are wrong about one important banking-accounting-legal aspect.
Here it is: unlike banks, which keep an aggregate position in many accounts (positions) and recalculate the so-called exchange differences into the native currency every day - ONLY for accounting, - retail forex traders have ONE account in ONE currency with the DC, and the rights and obligations on this account depend on how the aggregate position is counted. This is not accounting, but law. 90% of the users will write the wrong back office.
In other words, shifting on user-trader creation of his own back-office (instead of built in MT4), Metacquot create beforehand MASS of problems in trader-trading center relations. This problem can be solved by redesigning the MT5 back office. Have you forgotten - the dealer-bank back-office is still being tested and rewritten? Anything can still be crammed in there.
In other words, by shifting the user-trader to create his own back-office (instead of the one built into MT4), Metacquotes creates in advance a MASS of problems in the trader-trading center relationship. This problem can be solved by redesigning the MT5 back office. Have you forgotten that the back office is still being tested and rewritten? You may add there anything you like.
One "but". Such decisions are made at the design stage. And the product is already in the testing phase.
One "but". Such decisions are made at the design stage. And the product is already at the testing stage.
>> I agree. I'm not making excuses for Metacquotes, I'm just explaining their position and the principles of MT5, even though I have nothing to do with them at all.
Well, what else does the exchange offer in purely technical terms? It is clear that clearing is different, that paper accounts are maintained, etc. But in essence, the stock market is an opportunity for clients to freely find a counterparty and to be a liquidity provider among other things. The logic behind the exchange and the ECN is to have a common book of orders and to combine them.
And the very thing is that the deals are done not as a group, but in the Russian speaking "for three".
)))
And it's not the "glass" but a double counter auction of bids, the list of which allows us to watch the "glass".
The logic of working "inside MT" is practically the same... ;)
;)
As an example of the same Duca, where clever Russian guy Dryunya, instead of creating another one thousandth platform for his DC,
has created a more practical, and most importantly, more profitable platform (for himself) collecting liquidity providers ...
Simply put, instead of messing with clients with their $100 of crumpled up quid, he got himself a client (although how else to see who is a client ;)))
which says bigger and for a commission, which will always be dripping into Duca's pocket. No matter what...
(when the Duke brothers were teaching Billy Ray Valentine:
- one client says buy, the other client says sell,
and no matter what happens to them, the broker always gets his commission.
)))
The problem of locks is purely virtual and I think the NFA wouldn't even care if the broker gave the order interface as on MT4. If it were not for the negative swap inside the locs, which is quite real and is a pure scam. Everything else is completely settled within the standard exchange model.
It's not the NFA that bothers me more in this story, it's the native accounting and legal intricacies. I guess it is true that NFA can be circumvented by virtualisation. It's murky as to which country and how it's implemented.
And that's what gives you the fact that the deals are not done as a group, but in the Russian way "for three".
)))
And it's not a tumbler, but a double counter auction of bids, the list of which allows you to watch the tumbler.
The logic of working "inside MT" is practically the same... ;)
;)
As an example of the same Duca, where clever Russian guy Dryunya, instead of creating another one thousandth platform for his DC,
created a more practical, and most importantly, more profitable platform for liquidity providers...
Simply put, instead of messing with clients with their $100 quid, he made his clients (although how else to see who is the client ;)))
which says bigger and for a commission, which will always be dripping into Duca's pocket. No matter what...
(when the Duke brothers were teaching Billy Ray Valentine:
- one client says buy, the other client says sell,
and no matter what happens to them, the broker always gets his commission.
)))
Well ECN doesn't organise a double counter auction of bids? There is a feature that clients are not cleared with participating banks, but the aggregate is cleared with the bank at the average price. What is the fundamental difference for a client and his trading on an ECN and on an exchange? Purely in terms of trading and not legally and accounting?
Legal-accounting has nothing to do with storing the database of virtual positions on your computer or on the broker's trading server.