will the FOREX live on? - page 7
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
Although, those who have a full brain don't go into forex at all... but that's another story
+ ))
Probably everyone has already heard that soon in Russia the 5 largest Forex brokers will stop working and here questions arise. Will it be the end of a trading career for you? Or will someone master other markets? In general, how do you feel about it?
This is an attempt by Russian law to legalise forex as we know it, but the fact is that the forex market itself doesn't really care, it's the same situation as the self-employed. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Forex brokers have already paid for these licenses).
You may trade wherever you want on a demo account.
As for the brokers, they may be more worried if they have money and brains ) money is not earned in such a naive way and it would be absurd to lose it so childishly.
Although, those who have a brain do not go to Forex ... but that's another storyIf you do not know how to trade in such a naive way it would be absurd to lose it in such a childish way.
Ilya - just gorgeous! :)))
Although in the 90s the brain got in the way of earning money: )))) The salary of an underground cleaner was considerably higher than that of a CAD engineer
Well, yes, those who have a brain to make money with it will not do so - the logic is ironclad.
Those who have money and are in their right mind won't use it.
If you have a penny account, it's out of the question. Most of the local scribes are beggars who have never worked with money. The average dc client account is <$100.
So you give in to tempting ads and are willing to believe everything they have on their sites. That's how advertising and mass media work. In fact, you are not protected and you have nobody or no one to ask.
I am not describing real stories that have happened to me and others because that would be advertising/anti-publicity. Just take my word for it or look it up on youtube if you've never traded. And throw out that adolescent maximalism. I have no interest in harming you.Whoever has money and is in their right mind won't go
with a penny account, even if you're stuck with it, that's out of the question. Most of the local writers are paupers who have never worked with money. The average dc client account is <$100.
So you give in to tempting ads and are willing to believe everything they have on their sites. That's how advertising and mass media work. In fact you are not protected and there is no one or very far to ask.
I'm not describing real stories that happened specifically to me and others here, because that would be advertising/anti-publicity. Just take my word for it or look it up on youtube if you've never traded. And throw out that adolescent maximalism. I have no interest in harming you.I'm lucky: 10 years ago I chose a decent forex broker for once (offshore, of course, because the others have too much hassle with deposit/withdrawal) and since then I have not had any problems with it, and I have not seen anybody else having problems with this broker. Not too large (one should really think about choosing a broker with segregated accounts in some Switzerland), of course, but not $100 either.
I was lucky: 10 years ago I chose once a normal forex broker (offshore, of course, because the others are too much hassle with input-output) and since then I have not had any problems with it, and I have not seen anyone else with this broker had them I have operated with different amounts. Not too large (you should think about choosing a broker with segregated accounts in Switzerland), of course, but not $100 either.
The segregation is just an indicator that they have to separate their resources from client resources, because transactions are not segregated anywhere, but circulate within a DT, and the DT is responsible as a counterparty, not as an intermediary. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for it
because they would have been fiddling with clients' money as they wanted, and at some point there might have been no money to repay (e.g. a new dacha was bought).
of course, the advertising makes it sound like something super reliable for the client, even though it is trivialSegregation is precisely an indicator that they have been obliged to separate their funds from client funds, because the transactions do not go anywhere, but rather circulate within the DC, and the DC is responsible as a counterparty, not as an intermediary. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for it
Otherwise there wouldn't be any need to do it. Because they were just playing with clients' money as they wanted and at some moment there could be no money for reimbursement (for example, a new summer house has been bought).
Of course, in advertising it sounds like something super reliable for the client, although this is trivialClient funds (forex, I don't know about the stock exchange) are always in the broker-intermediary's account pool and he places these funds in the accounts of his counterparties as collateral for their transactions. Otherwise, what funds would he place on them?
Segregation means exactly the same system, only the clients' accounts are kept in special accounts in banks, which can be disposed of by the broker within the framework of the contract and/or the clients' orders. The scheme is similar (of course I cannot describe the details, because I am not familiar with the internal dealing algorithms), but each client is responsible only for his own transactions and if the broker goes bankrupt, these funds remain in his personal account. Anyway, this distinction in no way proves that the broker is a kitchen boy, nor does it prove that the broker is not an intermediary. The only difference is in the technical implementation.
For those who have millions of dollars in their accounts, it can certainly make a difference. As for smaller amounts (especially much smaller ones) - this is just a PR tool, in order for people like you to draw an unambiguous and not really based on anything: "this is not a kitchen, this is a middleman and everyone else is a kitchen". Just like the high CG on pums leads some investors to draw the false conclusion that they are more reliable.Client funds (forex, I don't know about the stock exchange) are always in the broker-intermediary's account pool, and he places these funds in the accounts of his counterparties as collateral for their transactions. Otherwise, what funds would he place on them?
Segregation means exactly the same system, only the clients' accounts are kept in special accounts in banks, which can be disposed of by the broker within the framework of the contract and/or the clients' orders. The scheme is similar (of course I cannot describe the details, because I am not familiar with the internal dealing algorithms), but each client is responsible only for his own transactions and if the broker goes bankrupt, these funds remain in his personal account. Anyway, this distinction in no way proves that the broker is a kitchen boy, nor does it prove that the broker is not an intermediary. The only difference is in the technical implementation.
It does not prove anything, yes, because it is possible to work according to the market maker principle (not to withdraw anything from anywhere) in any case. But there is still a conflict of interest, because the market maker always plays against clients. This is sort of the essence of the game.
In the end, the more various protective mechanisms are introduced, the closer they are to exchanges and become mini-markets themselves, because there is no other way. For example, clients of a brokerage house may play against each other, but this is not global forex and there will never be such a thing that everything is connected to everything in terms of transactions. And therefore there will always be a share of manipulations, even on exchanges, but in DT it is hypertrophied to the horror. Think about server shutdowns on the news, marcamps, restrictions on withdrawals and so on.
As for the brokers, their prices are too high to be taken seriously.
When you put these two together, you'll understand that Forex trading cannot be considered "seriously". Trading is OK because there are real guarantees. offshore companies are funny. their clients will be left with naked ***immediately)) people have never learned anything from history.
It does not prove anything, yes, because it is possible to work according to the market maker principle (not to withdraw anything from anywhere) in any case. But there is still a conflict of interest, because the market maker is always playing against the clients. This is sort of the essence of the game.
In the end, the more various protective mechanisms are introduced, the closer they are to exchanges and become mini-markets themselves, because there is no other way. For example, clients of a brokerage house may play against each other, but this is not global forex and there will never be such a thing that everything is connected to everything in terms of transactions. And therefore there will always be a share of manipulations, even on exchanges, but in DT it is hypertrophied to the horror. Think about server shutdowns on the news, marcamps, restrictions on withdrawals and so on.
As for the brokers, their prices are too high to be taken seriously.
When you put these two together, you'll understand that you cannot "seriously consider" Forex trading because there are real guarantees.
How can I tell you - people are left naked much, much more often as a result of their own efforts than as a result of bankruptcy of a well-known, operating for decades forex broker (if you do not count one-day brokerage). Therefore, such arguments are more like cries of "wolves, wolves!" than a statement of a really significant danger factor. Of course there is, but when choosing a broker who has been working on this market for 20 years and has no black marks in his reputation, the probability that you will cope with the "task" yourself much faster or, conversely, will be able to earn money and withdraw it is 99.99% higher than becoming a victim of bankruptcy.
Secondly, you can't withdraw anything in any layout. The dealer has no reliable risk management (and that is the withdrawal of client positions to the market), so there is no way to say about it that it has successfully gone through more than a dozen of such local shocks in its "life" and has never stopped paying out.