BRENT - page 11
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
read this article (it is written for beginners).
If you have already read it (i.e. it's not like you're a beginner), you should be able to solve the simplest problem. Looking forward to hearing from you
Let's move on from words to numbers and solve an exaggerated problem:
The hypothetical Vasya and Petya are trading against each other on the stock exchange. Petya has 4₽. GO <= 100%. The trade was made at 4₽. The price then went against Petya and at the time of settlement was 10₽.
Question: who will pay Vasya the missing 2₽ ?
That can't happen because the broker will close the position early on a stop-out.
And if the exchange also increases the GO by 2 times, the broker will close everyone by stop-out.
And then you can close the stock exchange by stop out ))))
Exactly right, for the exchange not to be at a loss, the CS in this case must be > 100%, butprostotrader does not believe that, thinks he is smarter than the market
Exactly right, for the exchange not to be at a loss, the CS in this case must be > 100%, and prostotrader does not believe this, thinks he is smarter than the market
You have it all wrong.
The exchange has other ways to limit trading.
And if the exchange raises GOs to an outrageous level, in this case 100% of it is an outrage, no one will trade there.
And we will have to close the exchange's futures market.
And if the exchange raises CS, in this case 100% of it, no one will trade there.
And we will have to close the exchange's futures market.
Speculators may not trade, but producers/consumers will. The exchange was originally designed not to make money, but to insure risks. It is not clear to speculators how "negative" leverage (less than 1) can interfere with trading.
Speculators may not trade, but producers/consumers will. The exchange was originally designed not to make money, but to insure risk. And speculators do not understand how "negative" leverage (less than 1) can interfere with trading.
And if they do not understand it, they do not need to invent their own rules of market relations.
And if you don't understand, don't make up your own market rules.
Explain then (if you can) how leverage of less than 1 interferes with trading in principle. Maybe it is written in a law, or trading rules? No? Then please explain?
It's not my idea, it's the market's.
h ttps://ru.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/article-1965767
Explain then (if you can) how leverage of less than 1 hinders trading. And it's not my idea, it's the market's.
And you take into account that the exchange has the ability to suspend trading in case of high risk, just to add CS?
That losses are written off in clearing and a deposit is required?
All this allows the broker to have time to close the side on a margin call, especially if the instrument is liquid.
Yes, leverage less than one can have its benefits as long as there is no appreciation to price+logistics+storage.