BRENT - page 12

[Maxim Romanov]

Dmitriy Skub:
And those who stood in the shorts probably did not file a lawsuit).

What's the use, it wouldn't have been possible to close the shorts anyway.

They say forex is bad, but it's no better here.

[A100]

Aleksey Vyazmikin:

Do you take into account that the exchange has the ability to suspend trading in the event of high risks, 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.

I take into account the real events of this week. The exchange has suspended trading, but that has not solved the issue. It takes time to add CS and besides - it would have become 150%.prostotrader denied the very possibility of CS > 100%. Petya's account was zeroed out and he still owed Vasya 2₽. And now it's unclear who will pay Vasya back.

[A100]

Maxim Romanov:
What's the use, it would not be possible to close the shorts anyway.

They say forex is bad, but it's no better here.

Back in 2015, when the franc jumped, all these same characters here were unanimously arguing that the stock market was a civilisation and forex was a primitive communal system. Life has put everything in its place. At least there has never been a negative price on Forex. Besides, for retail Forex clients under the FSA rules the loss is limited to the amount of the deposit, while at the exchange market it turns out that the loss is not limited - you can even lose your flat.

[Maxim Romanov]

A100:

Back in 2015, when the franc jumped, all these same characters here were unanimously arguing that the stock market was a civilisation and forex was a primitive communal system. Life has put everything in its place. At least there have been no negative prices on the exchange, and the losses for retail clients are limited by the law to the amount of the deposit.

Not at all. The swissquote does not have a limit, you have to pay there and it says so in the docks. But with the fca regulator, yes, limited. In any case, any market does not forgive mistakes and there are a huge number of factors to take into account. Who would have thought this would happen.

I think that the exchange algorithms are to blame. I have not analyzed the situation in details, but at first glance it seems that the algorithms have made a mistake and now they are trying to shift all the losses onto clients. Someone has to pay for the feast). It's a good thing I didn't buy it, but I wanted to.

[A100]

Maxim Romanov:

Yes... corrected to FSA

[prostotrader]

I didn't realise it was that bad!

Apparently EVERYONE has to explain what futures are.

1. SPOT is the price of a commodity when the seller and buyer can make a transaction and immediately ship/collect the goods (shop).

2. A FUTURE is a transaction made now at a price (slightly different from the SPOT) that does not change until the goods are received/shipped (expiration is the deadline for completion and settlement of the transaction).

3. GO - some amount of money deposited by both buyer and seller as a pledge that the buyer

pay in full to the seller for the goods which the seller must ship at expiration.

Normally, the joint collateral amount is the difference between the price of the current and the following futures,

which for each participant in the transaction is 10-15% of the value of the SPOT (fluctuation in the price of the commodity).

Now, ATTENTION!

What idiot will pay full money now for a commodity that he will get in a while at a price much HIGHER (GO for futures)

than he can buy now (SPOT)!?

What the exchange has done is simply a murder of the principles of futures contract trading!

Added

int OnInit()
{
   double mar_buy, mar_sell;
   double price = SymbolInfoDouble(Symbol(), SYMBOL_BID);
   bool result = OrderCalcMargin(ORDER_TYPE_BUY_LIMIT, Symbol(), 1, price, mar_buy);
   result = OrderCalcMargin(ORDER_TYPE_SELL, Symbol(), 1, price, mar_sell);
   double barrel = SymbolInfoDouble(Symbol(), SYMBOL_TRADE_CONTRACT_SIZE);
   double d_kurs = SymbolInfoDouble("USDRUB_TOM", SYMBOL_LAST); 
   double total_go = (mar_buy + mar_sell)/barrel/d_kurs;
   Print("Цена одного барреля($) = ", price);
   Print("ГО покупателя = ", mar_buy);
   Print("ГО покупателя за 1 баррель($) = ", mar_buy/barrel/d_kurs);
   Print("ГО продавца = ", mar_sell);
   Print("ГО продавца за 1 баррель($) = ", mar_sell/barrel/d_kurs);
   Print("Размер контракта (баррелей в 1 контракте) = ", barrel);
   Print("Курс доллара = ", d_kurs);
   Print("Общее ГО = ", total_go, "$ за баррель");  
   return(INIT_SUCCEEDED);
}

The result

2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) Цена одного барреля($) = 21.47
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) ГО покупателя = 7692.75
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) ГО покупателя за 1 баррель($) = 10.31199731903485
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) ГО продавца = 14342.88
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) ГО продавца за 1 баррель($) = 19.22638069705094
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) Размер контракта (баррелей в 1 контракте) = 10.0
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) Курс доллара = 74.59999999999999
2020.04.24 18:43:22.500 cc (BR-5.20,M1) Общее ГО = 29.53837801608579$ за баррель

Just think about it!

Seller must deposit GO(GO of the seller for 1 barrel ($) = 19.22638069705094) almost equal to the cost of a barrel(Price per barrel ($) = 21.47)!

[Dmitriy Skub]

Maxim Romanov:
What's the use, closing the shorts wouldn't have worked anyway.

They say forex is bad, but it's no better here.

How so? How then do the buyers get into debt?)

[Roman]

prostotrader:

It turns out that the exchange has raised the CS for sellers twice as much as for buyers.
Thus stimulating sellers to reduce speculative selling.
A kind of leverage on sellers to short less.
In a high volatility period, or in a non-standard situation, the exchange can raise the CS as it sees fit.
And the May contract showed this abnormal situation.
In general, this is the way it adjusts the situation.
Plus the weekend in May is around the corner, we need to be reinsured for the off-trading period.

[prostotrader]

Roman:

It turns out that the exchange has raised GO for sellers twice in relation to the buyer.
Thus, it stimulates the sellers to decrease the volume of speculative sales.
A kind of leverage on sellers to short less.

No, what it turns out is that the stock exchange "lowers" the real sellers in order to cover its own ass.

The speculators are nothing compared to the real sellers (the volumes are quite different).

[A100]

prostotrader:

I didn't realise it was that messed up!

What idiot would pay full money now for a commodity that he will get some time later at a price much HIGHER (GO for futures)

than he can buy now (SPOT)!?

If you do not need the goods now (the warehouse is full or there is no warehouse at all), but will need them in the future at a certain price. In addition, if you buy the goods now, you have to pay storage fees. In addition to goods - this generally applies to currencies as well - negative interest rates, i.e. you generally pay for storing the money as well