Formalising common approaches to trading - 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
They will be beaten. Get ready)
They won't, imho, at least one serious topic in the last six months, who needs stats, I'll pour into the avalanche thread for the imagination.
as for the subtext: great! but I would remove FA from the way of earning, because it's not even the work of investment companies and others, but of government institutions (probably political games, i think seasonal trends, globalization and the global economy in general) - i think economists and politicians make money, while market participants use FA for news and insider information
And one more thing: I do not even know how to formulate it, but for trading there are only two physical quantities: price and time, how to combine these two parameters into a common approach?
I think it is not a problem if I copy interesting, in my opinion, approaches to trading in this thread, to accumulate approaches)
TECHNICAL MANIPULATION ALGORITHMS
The truth of any markets.
Let me first say what technical manipulation is from my point of view. Everyone knows that markets can be manipulated by spreading rumors about some events that have a significant effect on one company or another. Such rumors are quite common, are in direct violation of the laws in almost all developed countries, and are subject to investigation to find the source of such rumors. The statements of various analysts can in principle also be regarded as market manipulation, but it is difficult to catch the analyst in the act of malicious intent because he can always give different reasons for his opinion, and he as a human being is entitled to make mistakes and may well not take into account one or another factor that might affect his conclusions that he voiced in the press. That is, statements by analysts are not usually considered market manipulation. But these are all classic examples of manipulation, but there is another method of manipulating the market, like buying or selling (or offering to buy or sell) a huge block of assets (stocks, futures contracts or something else). Sometimes, in order to stop the price movement, you need to simply put an order for a huge block of an asset, sometimes you need to aggressively sell or buy (aggressively - by huge volumes, often by orders "on the market"), sometimes you need to aggressively "ride the wave" for several days, etc., etc. Such methods of manipulation seem at first glance very expensive, but with sufficient resources they are extremely profitable. Such methods of market manipulation I call technical manipulation. Why technical? Because these methods of manipulation are directly related to technical analysis of markets. The fact is that such manipulations are often used to convince petty speculators in infallibility of this or that method of technical analysis, as well as to "take away" the same speculators that have believed in the infallibility of the method of technical analysis and bought up "a lot". In addition, such methods are very often arranged so-called "resistance levels" and "support levels", which are terms referring specifically to technical analysis. In general, the connection of such manipulations with technical market analysis gives me reason to call this type of manipulations exactly technical manipulations.
What is the peculiarity of technical manipulations compared to other types of manipulations? Their peculiarity is that it is very difficult to find anything illegal in them, and that is why such manipulations are the main tool of market manipulation. News, very often greatly exaggerated or conversely greatly exaggerated, is used as an auxiliary tool. I have already mentioned the super profits made by exchanges, brokers and other structures related to the exchange industry, they have enough money to inflate unimportant news from the size of a fly to the size of an elephant to provide an alibi for their main tool of market manipulation - technical manipulation.
MONSTERS VERSUS PLANKTON
If someone has won money on the stock market,
it means someone else has lost that money.
Exchange game monsters, such as hedge funds and hedge funds continuously scour the oceans of markets in search of easy prey, and it is business as usual - everyone eats each other without the slightest shred of conscience, because that is the rule of the game. The biggest profits are made by big hedge funds, and they do it mainly at the expense of a huge mass of the smallest and inexperienced players. Smaller hedge funds usually do not fall prey to the biggest ones - they are not that inexperienced. In this chapter, let's look at the algorithms that the particularly large hedge funds use against the smallest market dwellers.
In general, of course, the main technique is to scare small speculators into selling at low prices and then buying at high, although it could be the other way around - first, as some speculators put it, "drive the papyr" and then drive the price down and "shake out the speculators".
Monsters, of course, cannot simply drive prices down by selling assets, especially in a favorable news backdrop. The situation is similar with price hikes - it takes money to raise prices. Therefore, the methods (techniques) of psychological influence on intraday speculators that are almost the main driving force in the markets are used. Below we will consider what these techniques are. Actually, some of these algorithms can be applied in any games where there is confrontation, and even in real actions. Sometimes what happens in the stock market really does look like a battle.
"Holding altitude".
That's what I call the technique where a major player holds on to some psychologically significant price. That is, if a monster needs to move the price down, there will almost always be a sell order at the psychologically significant level, and if a big player needs to move the price up, there will be a buy order at the significant level. Usually a number divisible by 5 points in the fourth digit of the number is used as such a price. For instance, for our Lukoil today it would be the numbers 1500, 1510, 1515, 1520, etc., if we take Gazprom, for it it would be the levels 162.0, 162.5, 163.0, 163.5. And for Sberbank it would be the 43.10, 43.15, 43.20 and so on. Naturally, the more zeros at the end of the number, the greater the value of that level. Such price is quite easily remembered by intraday speculators, who often look at the stock level, and when they see that a level is not broken in any way, it exerts psychological pressure on them. Under such pressure, the small speculator will start to play on the side of the monster. Thus, the strength of the hedge fund can double, triple or even increase many times - it all depends on how much of the total capital is managed by small speculators on the exchange. If you have ever looked at the stock market, you might have noticed that the price is almost always moving in spurts from one psychologically significant marker to another. This happens because the monster, seeing a decrease in the intensity of the attack on the held price moves to grab and hold the next significant level. Sometimes, however, the move to the next level does not occur when the intensity of the attack decreases, but rather when the intensity of the attack increases. This is done in order to "ride the wave".
Exchange "glass ".
"Shifter".
This technique is used to trick small speculators into thinking that everyone is selling when everyone is buying (or vice versa). That is, the picture is turned upside down, hence the name. Let's take for example the scenario where a hedge fund plays down on a very positive news backdrop. The small speculators rush to buy and they have to be urgently stopped in order to sell the fund everything they have, because it has not had time to buy.
In order to hide the truth, the next ten sell orders in the cup are placed in volumes many times smaller than the buy orders. There are a lot of bids in such conditions, they are large because all the small speculators rushed to buy. But the price has not moved upward. It hasn't moved because at the price levels with small bids to sell there are large conditional bids (also for sell) that are not visible in the put price, i.e. they are hidden until at least one trade is made at this price level. These hidden conditional orders are placed using the "by market" orders, i.e., they do not appear in the stack when the price reaches them but break the price down. (I also sometimes call this method "bombs" or "mines".) What is the picture that a small speculator sees? At the top there are small sell orders, i.e. there is minimal growth resistance, at the bottom there are large buy orders, the news background is good, and why shouldn't the market grow? But the large bids from the bottom are gradually breaking through, the price doesn't go up, in fact, it goes down. The speculator gets mad thinking that the big players apparently know something he does not, and he pours everything he bought recently by a couple of percents above the current price. At the expense of such speculators, the funds make a bust, as a result of which they recover their positions in the securities by buying back everything they have sold and beyond, all at low prices.
"Waterboarding".
This technique consists of buying assets quietly, in small batches, very gradually, over a long period of time, trying to have a minimal effect on the market, and then, when the market goes up, abruptly dumping all the securities. This leads to price declines, especially if the abrupt dump is made from a single level, designated by the big speculators as a kind of "resistance level". It is also possible to play upwards in a similar way.
For a long time I could not think of a really appropriate name for this method. I decided that it is more like opening the valves of the dam - as if the water accumulated in the reservoir for a long time is being released all at once.
"Puncture."
This is a sudden and very strong (5 - 15 percent or even more) movement in some direction with a quick subsequent recovery. With the help of punctures the monsters kill two birds with one stone: first, they take small speculators to stop-losses, or to margin-calls, and second, they show small speculators where the price can move. This allows for a wider range of price movement, which is psychologically acceptable to small players. Punctures are usually used when the bulk of players no longer believe the price of this or that security can move past a psychologically significant level, and all of them begin to buy (or sell) when the security's price approaches this level. Sometimes monsters spend huge money (or other assets) on the puncture, sometimes playing at a loss, but the widening of the possible range of price fluctuations in the public eye pays off as a result - the biggest money is made by monsters on the biggest price fluctuations. And imagine a person who, after a "puncture" of, say, 15% downwards, thinks about buying a bundle of that asset. After all, it is psychologically very difficult to buy 15% higher than the price they had yesterday. Thus, the monsters, with the help of such "punctures", discourage small players from entering the position.
"Ahead of the train".
This is one method of stopping traffic. Imagine a steam train travelling on snow-covered tracks. If there is not much snow, the locomotive will shovel it without even noticing. But if we, moving ahead of the locomotive, will collect a thin layer of snow in large piles, then our locomotive will strongly lose speed at each such obstacle. The main thing here is that the locomotive should not have time to accelerate back to the previous speed by moving along the cleared rails from one pile to another. The same can be done in the stock market, buying all small bids below a certain level on the rise, at which we put our large sell order (if the market is moving up). It is especially easy to stop the market in this way if you open it with a good gap to the upside and continue climbing. Speculators do not like to buy on an upward gap opening. If, however, there are those willing to buy, the "ahead of the locomotive" method is used against them. The same method can be used to stop the downward movement. This method is also good, because monsters make money on such a movement ahead of the crowd all the time.
"Washing board".
This is a method of shaking speculators out of their positions by abrupt, violent, unpredictable and often unexplained up and down price spikes. When the price begins to fluctuate chaotically, speculators become nervous and exit the security, closing their positions. Of course, there are those, who try to make profit on these price jumps, but most often they lose, because hedge funds act taking into account market reaction, and if after the next price failure many buyers were found, the price falls even lower, so that it would be a sin not to catch the "bottom" next time. If the method works and people close their positions, the price goes up and stays there until people believe in continued growth, and when they do, they dump the entire amount of the paper and bring the price to the ground again. Sometimes this method is used not to shake speculators out of the paper and then drive it higher, but to initiate a sell-off and bring prices down. What the monsters will do in each case is impossible to figure out, just a guess, and it is a regular roulette. You can only beat the monsters if you've broken out of the herd.
"Accelerator."
Those who have ever looked at the stock market may have noticed the following strange picture: there is a large (or very large) bid, say, for a buy. The price is gradually approaching it, and the order is filled (broken). But as soon as it is broken, at the same price level there is a similar order, but not for purchase, but for sale. I also could not understand at first why securities are bought and then sold at one and the same price, because it does not bring absolutely no profit, and can even bring losses, if the owner's rate involves commission payment for transaction. However, monsters usually either have a brokerage license themselves and may not pay any commission, paying a fixed subscription fee to the exchange, or they have a special contract with a broker, under which again they do not pay any commission. So these bids are placed by monsters. So why do they need these seemingly meaningless deals? The answer is simple. If a herd of small speculators cannot be stopped and reversed by a large order, they try to accelerate its movement by the same large order but with an opposite sign. This is one of the methods of price swinging at the exchange.
Small speculators are called meat among brokers and big players, by the way.
"Contrarian."
Contrarianism is the method by which the largest of the hedge funds, the hedge fund funds (HFFs), operate. With this method, a hedge fund needs to control two markets at once: the market of the underlying asset (for example, oil) and the market that depends on that underlying asset (for example, the Russian stock market, which depends on oil prices). Let us consider the oil market and the Russian stock market. The method is as follows: at low price levels of the equity market, hedge funds arrange a rise of oil prices and, against the rising oil prices, collapse the equity market, sinking their securities rather cheaply. Naturally, small speculators buy up on such a drop in stocks, because oil prices are rising and the stock market, if you follow normal logic, should be rising too, but it is not. The stock market goes down as much as possible under current conditions, and after that, oil goes down. This is when small speculators realise how they have been cheated and close their positions in a hurry before it falls even further. After the monsters have bought, papers go up again, but now on falling oil. Stock plankton, who does not understand anything, looks for explanation of such strange growth in news and, not finding it, enters short positions (because oil falls, so market must fall too). This is where the small guys get a hard time again, because the more they sell to the monsters, the higher they go because they can't make any money otherwise. After several days (or weeks) of inexplicable growth on the stock markets, oil starts rising, and then the stock market plankton hurries to buy the overvalued paper, hoping that the market will win back another bounce of oil. But it won't, because the more they buy from the monsters, the lower prices they drop, otherwise they will never make their billions.
In general, hedge funds are based on the opposite - buying when everyone else is selling and selling when everyone else is buying. Only hedge funds have one very big advantage: when they buy, they can buy all the paper off the market. When they sell, few funds can buy back everything a hedge fund can sell, so hedge funds are able to crash the markets quite easily, though it is always much harder to work down than up, because there is always a limited amount of paper, because there is not more paper than is issued by the issuer and there is even less freely tradable paper on the stock markets, but hedge funds have, in general, a conditionally unlimited amount of money, i.e. they buy at levels at which they can buy all the freely tradable paper out of the market.
"Free fall".
There is a well-known saying of stockbrokers about this method: "You need money to raise prices. Prices can fall by their own weight". It is natural that prices are not falling under their own weight, but due to the fact that every deal takes speculative capital out of the commission, which is given to brokers and exchanges. As a result, the amount of all the money on the stock exchange is constantly decreasing. Moreover, the higher the liquidity of the asset, the faster the amount of money operated by the speculators decreases. As there is less and less money in the market, the ratio of the volume of marketable securities to money changes, which means that at current prices there is not enough money for all securities. In this case, the prices of highly liquid assets are constantly falling, slowly but surely.
Hedge funds can use relatively small volumes of funds (comparable to daily turnover of this asset) to increase volatility, which increases liquidity and speeds up taking money out of small speculators, especially if hedge funds make small profits. However, this is not a free fall, but an accelerated one :) .
A "rocking".
This is movement of prices going up and down with increasing amplitude. It is somewhat similar to the washboard method, but here the opposite task is solved - not to shake speculators out of all their positions, but on the contrary, to make them enter positions and stop reacting to the market movements. The essence of the method is the following: it is based on the doctrine that speculators, in order not to lose too much, must always put bids to close his position, if the loss of this position has reached a certain level. Among speculators, these orders are called "stop loss", derived from the English words "stop" and "loss" - to stop losses. Often speculators simply refer to these orders as "stops". The trick with these "stops" is that it can be very difficult to choose at which level to place them. Some speculators put them at a certain percentage below the buy (or above the sell), some speculators put them based on the amplitude of the intraday movements of the asset, some speculators try to follow so-called "support levels" and "resistance levels" and so on. There is no common algorithm for correct "stop" setting. The price move to levels where most of the stop-losses placed by market plankton are guaranteed to trigger is known as "stop-lossing" by the big punters. When large numbers of speculators get their stops triggered several times in a row and prices then return to the trend they expected, they pull their stops further away from the entry price. If the next "back and forth" wave does not lead monsters to the target, i.e., does not cause the mass withdrawal of small fractions on "stops", the amplitude of the movement increases. Speculators lose again, and again they move their stops, but the farther they move their stops, the more they lose on them, while hedge funds gain more and more. This "bumping" of the market continues until the small guys wait to see where the market goes. If the petty cash goes out of the game, hedge funds shift the price in any direction (as the case may be), but very much, to stimulate plankton, which gets a vector from the monsters, where to play, and go back to positions. Then the picture repeats.
It should be noted, that some of small speculators after "bouncing" stay in their positions at all, taking their stops off, in order not to be shaken out, as it happened more than once. In this case a significant price shift is made by hedge funds exactly against the main mass of players in positions, after which the "bouncing" starts again, naturally acting on the nerves of those who are sitting in positions with big losses. This leads to the fact thatmost of these players record significant losses.
How do hedge funds know where the bulk of the stock plankton is playing? As I wrote in the "Monsters of Stock Market Play" chapter, it is estimated that hedge funds account for around half of all trades in markets around the world. Thus, if they have much less paper, it means that plankton is sitting in long positions, if they have more paper, it means that the petty-minded opened short positions. Thus, always moving the price in the direction, most profitable for themselves, hedge funds automatically play against the main mass of small speculators.
The "bumping" method is often combined with the "free fall" technique.
"Greed Catching".
This is one of the main methods of "shoehorning" the stock plankton (along with the "Counter-Pass" method), but even more fundamental. It is human greed that is the basis of existence of the exchange game industry. Of course, it is good, if a speculator manages to earn a few percent of invested money, but a greedy speculator is always gnawing at the thought of how much he could earn, if he had a little more money. And if he could earn not only on the rise, but also on the fall, he could make even more money... And the speculator imagines the sweet life, yachts, cars, beaches and expensive hotels... And the broker hustles: "I'll lend you the same amount of money as you have in your account" and the speculator is hooked. And the broker is ready to lend not only money, but also paper, and even a credit card with a limit of, say, half of the account... The speculator, especially the beginner, who came to the exchange market through an ad in the newspaper or in the underground, does not realize that the broker never loses his money. As soon as the amount in the speculator's account falls below a predetermined level, all positions are automatically closed, up to complete zeroing of the account (this is called a "margin call", i.e. loan withdrawal), and the broker will still take all his money, all his securities and even interest. Precisely because the client's account is always under the broker's control, the broker is always ready to lend his client absolutely risk-free and always does it with pleasure, because otherwise it is very difficult to trick the client in the exchange market. For example, how do you get speculators to buy incredibly overpriced securities, like Sberbank is now (December 2009)? Very simply. It is necessary to make the stock market plankton to open short positions on the given paper, i.e. to give people an opportunity to borrow the paper, which will make them sell it, and to release a bad news about this issuer (on 15.12.2009 it was confirmation of Sberbank's rating with a "negative" outlook). Borrowed is the key word here. If one has borrowed, one already owes, and if one owes, one will be nervous if one's debt suddenly begins to grow. And the growth of the debt will not be long, because in addition to the interest on the loan, the price of the paper itself can go up. What is a man forced to do? He is forced to fix his losses. In the case of a short position it is nothing but the purchase of the security at prices even more confusing than the price at which the speculator was selling it. The situation is the same with hedge fund downside plays. A paper bought at a ridiculous price with good leverage (i.e. all his own plus a loan from a broker), the speculator will be forced to sell at an even more ridiculous price. And the funnier the leveraged buy price, the funnier the sell price afterwards. That is how hedge funds manage to move blue chips to levels far beyond common sense, and there is no other way to reach those levels, because no sane investor would sell a security several times below its real price and buy a security several times above reasonable levels. People can only do this when they are forced to, and they do it through leverage and borrowed paper (or, in stock market slang, a "margin position"). So if you never use leverage and short positions, if you only buy at well below a reasonable price, you stand a much better chance of surviving this market and even making money in this casino. Unfortunately, the monsters almost always keep all prices well above reasonable levels, which means that exchanges all over the world are almost all the time in a bubble, and prices go below reasonable levels only in moments of so-called crises, which are often man-made, and buying some blue chip at such a moment is the only guaranteed way to make good money on the market. The main thing is not to borrow from your broker, never open "short" positions, and be patient, then it will be impossible to shake you out of the paper you bought at a ridiculous price at even more ridiculous prices. But again, the opportunity to buy paper cheap is given to us only once in a few years, but if you buy at a really low price, you can make a hundred per cent profit in one, two or three years without any effort at all. How fast you can make a profit depends on the seriousness of the crisis and the speed of market recovery depends on it.
* Selling a borrowed paper is called a "short" position, because a person takes the paper for a short time, just to sell it. A "long" position is when a person bought the paper and holds it until he sells it. The words "short" and "long" therefore refer to time, meaning that it would be more correct to say a position with "short" and "long" ownership of the paper. Slang, however, is an inherently wrong thing :).
Which begs the question, by the way, what to do with your money (if you have it) between crises? The answer is simple: between the crises it is most profitable to do some real business, i.e. invest in the real sector, but not in the stocks of real sector enterprises, because they can unexpectedly fall, but in a real business, i.e. open your own company, or become an entrepreneur and earn an honest living, if you know how :). At the same time you'll have something to buy cheap stocks for when the next crisis hits the stock market (and it's bound to come). Some guys asked me to put up a banner for them; they are just helping people set up their own business (banner below).
Sometimes, when there isn't enough small fish in the market (it happens during times of crisis, when all the small fish have been scared away), hedge funds are eager to play a little game with their direct competitors, and it is a very interesting show.
TITAN BATTLE
Here we will look at why there can only be one monster in one paper, how monsters knock each other out of the market, what tricks and counter tricks they use against each other, and why sometimes a smaller monster can knock out a bigger one.
Because I have never worked for any hedge fund myself (and if I had, I couldn't write about it), I cannot claim that everything I write here is true, but any of us can imagine what and how they would do if they had the desire to play the market and a couple hundred billion dollars. So...
What can one hedge fund stand up to another hedge fund? Naturally, any gambler will tell you that the low bidder can only use the paper they and their broker have and the high bidder can use the money. And it must be kept in mind that in the general case (in the world) there is always more money, because the volume of paper is always limited and therefore it is always easier to play on the upside. But can we imagine a situation when some relatively small hedge fund (call it fund M) knows that another hedge fund (call it fund B) has spent all its money and most of the leverage it could get from banks? After all, this information means that this hedge fund has used up its margin of safety. In this case, our relatively small hedge fund M might make good money if it plays down against a larger and much stronger hedge fund weakened by the enormous weight of exchange-traded assets. Our small hedge fund M gets an advantage if it already has a large enough volume of the asset that fund B is trying to keep from falling, because fund M can try to "break through" fund B by simply dumping all of its paper. The most it would lose is the difference in price between the higher purchase price and the lower selling price. A few percent. If there is a crisis on the market at the time, it is easy to explain this kind of loss to your investors, but if you can "break through" the big monster, you can make a very significant gain. But then an additional question arises: what will small speculators do? A lot depends on them, too.
Small speculators are taken care of by both funds. I wrote about how to manage the small speculators in a previous chapter, "Monsters versus Plankton". And each fund tries to attract speculators to its side. However, if it is relatively easy to apply the described algorithms to manipulate the exchange in the absence of large competitors, then it is very difficult to apply these same algorithms in the presence of large competitors, because each of the rivals is trying to confuse the other. In this case, such factors, as power of computers, controlling trading robots, speed of internet-channel, through which orders are transmitted and data about past deals are received, and, if a hedge fund is playing through many accounts, so as not to be caught by FFMS (or similar supervisory authority, if it is not in Russia), the speed of distributed network, providing coordination of orders of these accounts among themselves, starts to play a role.
In addition, what algorithms are incorporated into the exchange robot and whether those algorithms provide for a similar adversary. For example, if one of two fighting robots is more slow, the other one, which is faster, can break the price in a desired direction, shake out some of small speculators and restore its positions in an asset, thus making a profit. In order to prevent the competitor from performing such tricks, the other robot must manage to buy bids emerging at the price breakout so quickly that it can outbid its opponent. It should also be understood that the counterparty having an advantage in price advance is constantly making profit and, therefore, can increase its marginal positions. However, the larger the credits, the more critical the hedge fund's position will be in case the price moves in the opposite direction.
Usually, when a situation like this unfolds in the market, the daily transaction volumes increase sharply and this against the background of a very fast and strong jumping price. In this case, the price can jump up and down by a quarter or even half a percent a minute for the entire day. Sometimes it stays like that for weeks. I personally witnessed this in some securities on the Russian market in 2008, and it was especially pronounced in the spring.
I suspect that financial intelligence may play a large role in this confrontation, as well as news (rumour-mongering and duck-talking), and perhaps information attacks on minority shareholders (and rich people) to convince them to sell (or buy). It's a war, where all weapons are used because billions are at stake.
However, I believe that more often than not, hedge funds try to divide their spheres of influence beforehand, so that their interests don't collide.
Anyway, that's pretty much how I see it. Once again, I have no exact data in this matter, except statistics of real trades, and I may be wrong. But this picture seems quite plausible to me.
On the issue of plausibility: Here is a link to an article in the pages of Forbes, which describes how one of the largest oil traders in the USA (Semgroup) was ruined: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/096-sachs-semgroup-goldman-goose-oil.html. Experts familiar with the stock trading industry believe that the main opponent of Semgroup was the largest US bank Goldman Sachs. In this case, the smaller Semgroup, which was playing with relegation at the beginning of the crisis, was opposed by the large Goldman Sachs, which was playing with ascend. It should be noted that, fundamentally, the choice to go down was the right one, but if Goldman Sachs is playing against you, any choice can turn out to be the wrong one. It is worth reminding the dear reader that according to the press it was Goldman Sachs that helped Greece to hide from the European Parliament the real financial state of the country, and it was also Goldman Sachs that was the main actor in the campaign to distribute the very mortgage derivatives, whose collapse was the trigger for the 2008 crisis.
From the TA point of view it is most interesting what kind of "formation" of the price a particular action of market participants generates. For example, an attempt to break through a level with a bounce - we get a "fractal". The older is the timeframe of the fractal - the more participants. That's the way it is.
Yeah, but I don't think it's come to that yet.
They won't, imho, at least one serious topic in the last six months, who needs stats, I'll pour into the avalanche thread for the imagination.
as for the subtext: great! but I would remove FA from the way of earning, because it's not even the work of investment companies and others, but of government institutions (probably political games, i think seasonal trends, globalization and the global economy in general) - i think economists and politicians make money, while market participants use FA for news and insider information
One more thing: I don't even know how to formulate it, but for trading there are only two physical quantities: price and time, how to combine these two parameters into a common approach?
And this in the details of trading methods
I don't think it would hurt if I copied what I think are interesting approaches to trading into this thread to accumulate approaches)
Yes, this information is interesting and this class of methods claims to have a separate branch based on "TA speculation". You could call it "price manipulation" :)
It is better to divide one of the branches into two by designating
1 working with volumes that are not known to affect the market
2 Working with volumes which might influence the market
// some forex dealers will have objections - "infinite liquidity".
It would be better to divide one of the branches into two by designating
1 working with volumes that are not known to affect the market
2 Working with volumes which might influence the market
// forex dealers will have objections regarding "infinite liquidity".
I agree, but the former would probably be better described as "manipulation of non-price data". You mean manipulating news, reports, rumours, publications?
P.S. it would probably be more logical to have a separate branch called "manipulations", and from it "with the help of prices" and "with the help of the mass media".