Raw Forex Review - is rawforex.com scam or good forex broker?
Raw Forex Review - is rawforex.com scam or good forex broker?
Raw spread. : Forex
10 Best Zero Spread Forex Brokers (Starting From 0 Pip) in ...
How to Understand the Forex Spread
IC Markets - Leading Forex CFD Provider
Forex trading - Zero Markets
What is a Spread in Forex Trading? - BabyPips.com
IC Markets Raw Spread vs Standard Account 2020 Comparison
Raw Spread Account IC Markets
Raw Spread Accounts - Forex - The FX View
Indian sugar industry’s major player Nirani Group projects going forward as a bio-energy company with sugar a by-product
Indian sugar industry’s major player Nirani Group is looking to evolve beyond the traditional sugar business model and expand further as it targets new long-term supply deals for the ethanol, leaving sugar as a by product. The company's Managing Director - Mr. Vijay Nirani told ChiniMandi News in an interview. Speaking on his assessment on the sugar season in terms of sugar production, exports and profitability he said, “With a very good monsoon this year, Karnataka is set to see a record breaking crushing season this year. The district of Bagalkot itself has forecasted a crushing of 14 million Mt, which is the highest ever. This year is an opportunity to crush with high efficiency and try and make it even with the preceding 3 bad seasons where we had to face huge natural calamities like droughts and flash floods. The high crushing that is forecasted is not all merry, as there will be a huge gap between demand and supply as there is going to excess production of sugar, it is going to be a challenge in itself this year to get a good realisation for sugar. With speculations from the Government of India, that they may not consider giving subsidy for exports, it will only multiply the challenges in hand. Though mills in the state and the country have a great chance to make up for the accumulated losses in the past, with good availability of quality cane, the millers are all set to exhibit their talents by ensuring high efficiency crushing with maximum value additions, the true crux of profitability lies with the sugar market dynamics, the Govt. has to ensure proper regulation to make sure the mills get a fair share in order to ensure timely and proper payments to farmers who are already in great distress due to continued draught, flash floods and now the spread of this deadly pandemic of COVID-19. On being asked how he sees the prices of sugar in Karnataka State considering the aftermath of Covid-19 and no announcement of hike in MSP Nirani said, “It is definitely going to be a great challenge to get a proper realisation for sugar though there is an Minimum Selling Price (MSP), if we look at the pretext of MSP being set at ₹3100 is itself not a thorough price, in order to bridge the cost gap between FRP to MSP the MSP has to be revised to ₹3500. Since sugar being an essential commodity there is not going to be a huge drop in consumption by any means at the same time we know there is already carried forward stock from the last season and the production this year is going to be massive by all measures and the consumption of sugar is not going to increase all of a sudden. This is definitely going to directly impact the price, the symptoms have already begun, the rates are already in a downward trajectory.” Sharing views about the growth prospect in Karnataka state for the sugar industry he shared, “It is definitely going to be value addition and ensuring zero wastage, we need to ensure there is a proper backward and a forward integration for all the mass that is being generated or put into use in the mills.” “The major advantages that the sugar industries have are yet untapped by many, with just sugar cane as a raw material, we can generate - Sugar, jaggery powder, jaggery cakes, sugar syrup, icing sugar, Electricity, Pulp from Bagasse, furniture from bagasse, biodegradable products from bagasse, CNG and Bio gases, bio fuels, chemicals, ENA, Ethanol the list goes on. The key to sustain is to add value to every product, rather create products of value and not just depend on sugar as a product.” He further added. Over the couple of years, Nirani Group has been widening its wings in the business of sugar, answering whether there are any further plans on expansion in capacity and beyond Karnataka Nirani said, “We started off about 2 decades ago as the smallest industry in the country with a crushing capacity of 500 mT per day, but now stand tall with a consolidated crushing capacity of 60,000mT with 230 MW of Co-Generation and with allied integration spread across 6 mills. We have understood the weight that the sector carries and envision the thousands of lives that each of our mills have an effect on. We have been turning around sick units in the state, like Kedarnath Sugars and Agro, Badami Sugars Ltd, Pandavapura SSk, Sreerama Sugars SSK, SPR sugars, these were all closed/distressed units that we took over and are being run professionally and successfully, directly helping out all the families that were associated with those mills by means of employment, by crushing farmers cane in time, by creating many unorganised businesses around the campuses and creating revenue for the state and the country. Coming towards, how we at Nirani Group are taking measures to step up for the Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP); our chairman Shri Murugesh R Nirani ji was one of the pioneers of this EBP programme, he being a close associate in the govt and decision making, had key impact in developing of this scheme. As a group we already have a production capacity of 650 KLPD and are in an advanced stage of expanding the capacities to over 1000 KLPD by December of 2021. The EBP program has truly been a blessing not just for the health of the sugar industry but also achieves major goals like, reducing crude imports, directly benefiting our FOREX and addressing major ecological crises. We were one of the first in the state to divert sugarcane juice to Ethanol, during the previous crushing season 19-20, we have produced close to 16 Million litres of Ethanol from Sugarcane juice/Syrup. Going forward also we have all the plans to divert maximum of sugar into producing Ethanol we estimate a production of close to 96 Million liters of Ethanol purely from Sugarcane juice/syrup, the decision to allow Sugar cane juice/Syrup/B-heavy molasses for Ethanol and giving attractive incentives have been a landmark policy in the country for Sugar Sector. On being asked, what long term policies should be announced by the Govt. for the sugar industry to develop he said, “The Govt. should first eliminate the EBP hinges, like allowing for OMCs to enter into a 5 year supply contract and bringing in 2nd round of Interest subvention scheme, the GOI has already addressed a big crux, the enhancement of rate for ethanol by 3 odd rupees is an icing on the cake. The key policy that is thoroughly in need is the revision in MSP to ₹3500 at least, this is no way going to burden the average consumer as shelling out ₹3 to 5 more on sugar is not a huge impact for them, as compared to the benefits that this decision would bring, timely and prompt payments to farmers and sustainability of the mills. “Also to address the challenge of excess supply of sugar in the country the GOI usually gives export subsidy, which is usually released after a lot of scrutiny and delays, instead they should allow for this excess sugar to be diverted to ethanol so that the cash cycle is quicker and we address the demand that is there for ethanol. This diversion of excess sugar to Ethanol can be considered as deemed export and the same benefit can be given to the sugar mills that adopt this mechanism. To address the issue of excess production the GOI should increase the radial distance between the plants from the existing 15 Kms to atlest 35 Kms.” Nirani added. https://storage.googleapis.com/stateless-chinimandi-com/2020/11/8b27b37c-indian-sugar-industry’s.dom\_.eng\_.02.11.2020.08.58.mp3
Disclaimer: None of this is financial advice. I have no idea what I'm doing. Please do your own research or you will certainly lose money. I'm not a statistician, data scientist, well-seasoned trader, or anything else that would qualify me to make statements such as the below with any weight behind them. Take them for the incoherent ramblings that they are. TL;DR at the bottom for those not interested in the details. This is a bit of a novel, sorry about that. It was mostly for getting my own thoughts organized, but if even one person reads the whole thing I will feel incredibly accomplished.
For those of you not familiar, please see the various threads on this trading system here. I can't take credit for this system, all glory goes to ParallaxFX! I wanted to see how effective this system was at H1 for a couple of reasons: 1) My current broker is TD Ameritrade - their Forex minimum is a mini lot, and I don't feel comfortable enough yet with the risk to trade mini lots on the higher timeframes(i.e. wider pip swings) that ParallaxFX's system uses, so I wanted to see if I could scale it down. 2) I'm fairly impatient, so I don't like to wait days and days with my capital tied up just to see if a trade is going to win or lose. This does mean it requires more active attention since you are checking for setups once an hour instead of once a day or every 4-6 hours, but the upside is that you trade more often this way so you end up winning or losing faster and moving onto the next trade. Spread does eat more of the trade this way, but I'll cover this in my data below - it ends up not being a problem. I looked at data from 6/11 to 7/3 on all pairs with a reasonable spread(pairs listed at bottom above the TL;DR). So this represents about 3-4 weeks' worth of trading. I used mark(mid) price charts. Spreadsheet link is below for anyone that's interested.
I'm pretty much using ParallaxFX's system textbook, but since there are a few options in his writeups, I'll include all the discretionary points here:
I'm using the stop entry version - so I wait for the price to trade beyond the confirmation candle(in the direction of my trade) before entering. I don't have any data to support this decision, but I've always preferred this method over retracement-limit entries. Maybe I just like the feeling of a higher winrate even though there can be greater R:R using a limit entry. Variety is the spice of life.
I put my stop loss right at the opposite edge of the confirmation candle. NOT at the edge of the 2-candle pattern that makes up the system. I'll get into this more below - not enough trades are saved to justify the wider stops. (Wider stop means less $ per pip won, assuming you still only risk 1%).
All my profit/loss statistics are based on a 1% risk per trade. Because 1 is real easy to multiply.
There are definitely some questionable trades in here, but I tried to make it as mechanical as possible for evaluation purposes. They do fit the definitions of the system, which is why I included them. You could probably improve the winrate by being more discretionary about your trades by looking at support/resistance or other techniques.
I didn't use MBB much for either entering trades, or as support/resistance indicators. Again, trying to be pretty mechanical here just for data collection purposes. Plus, we all make bad trading decisions now and then, so let's call it even.
As stated in the title, this is for H1 only. These results may very well not play out for other time frames - who knows, it may not even work on H1 starting this Monday. Forex is an unpredictable place.
I collected data to show efficacy of taking profit at three different levels: -61.8%, -100% and -161.8% fib levels described in the system using the passive trade management method(set it and forget it). I'll have more below about moving up stops and taking off portions of a position.
And now for the fun. Results!
Total Trades: 241
TP at -61.8%: 177 out of 241: 73.44%
TP at -100%: 156 out of 241: 64.73%
TP at -161.8%: 121 out of 241: 50.20%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account):
TP at -61.8%: 5.22%
TP at -100%: 23.55%
TP at -161.8%: 29.14%
As you can see, a higher target ended up with higher profit despite a much lower winrate. This is partially just how things work out with profit targets in general, but there's an additional point to consider in our case: the spread. Since we are trading on a lower timeframe, there is less overall price movement and thus the spread takes up a much larger percentage of the trade than it would if you were trading H4, Daily or Weekly charts. You can see exactly how much it accounts for each trade in my spreadsheet if you're interested. TDA does not have the best spreads, so you could probably improve these results with another broker. EDIT: I grabbed typical spreads from other brokers, and turns out while TDA is pretty competitive on majors, their minors/crosses are awful! IG beats them by 20-40% and Oanda beats them 30-60%! Using IG spreads for calculations increased profits considerably (another 5% on top) and Oanda spreads increased profits massively (another 15%!). Definitely going to be considering another broker than TDA for this strategy. Plus that'll allow me to trade micro-lots, so I can be more granular(and thus accurate) with my position sizing and compounding.
A Note on Spread
As you can see in the data, there were scenarios where the spread was 80% of the overall size of the trade(the size of the confirmation candle that you draw your fibonacci retracements over), which would obviously cut heavily into your profits. Removing any trades where the spread is more than 50% of the trade width improved profits slightly without removing many trades, but this is almost certainly just coincidence on a small sample size. Going below 40% and even down to 30% starts to cut out a lot of trades for the less-common pairs, but doesn't actually change overall profits at all(~1% either way). However, digging all the way down to 25% starts to really make some movement. Profit at the -161.8% TP level jumps up to 37.94% if you filter out anything with a spread that is more than 25% of the trade width! And this even keeps the sample size fairly large at 187 total trades. You can get your profits all the way up to 48.43% at the -161.8% TP level if you filter all the way down to only trades where spread is less than 15% of the trade width, however your sample size gets much smaller at that point(108 trades) so I'm not sure I would trust that as being accurate in the long term. Overall based on this data, I'm going to only take trades where the spread is less than 25% of the trade width. This may bias my trades more towards the majors, which would mean a lot more correlated trades as well(more on correlation below), but I think it is a reasonable precaution regardless.
Time of Day
Time of day had an interesting effect on trades. In a totally predictable fashion, a vast majority of setups occurred during the London and New York sessions: 5am-12pm Eastern. However, there was one outlier where there were many setups on the 11PM bar - and the winrate was about the same as the big hours in the London session. No idea why this hour in particular - anyone have any insight? That's smack in the middle of the Tokyo/Sydney overlap, not at the open or close of either. On many of the hour slices I have a feeling I'm just dealing with small number statistics here since I didn't have a lot of data when breaking it down by individual hours. But here it is anyway - for all TP levels, these three things showed up(all in Eastern time):
7pm-4am: Fewer setups, but winrate high.
5am-6am: Lots of setups, but but winrate low.
12pm-3pm Medium number of setups, but winrate low.
I don't have any reason to think these timeframes would maintain this behavior over the long term. They're almost certainly meaningless. EDIT: When you de-dup highly correlated trades, the number of trades in these timeframes really drops, so from this data there is no reason to think these timeframes would be any different than any others in terms of winrate. That being said, these time frames work out for me pretty well because I typically sleep 12am-7am Eastern time. So I automatically avoid the 5am-6am timeframe, and I'm awake for the majority of this system's setups.
Moving stops up to breakeven
This section goes against everything I know and have ever heard about trade management. Please someone find something wrong with my data. I'd love for someone to check my formulas, but I realize that's a pretty insane time commitment to ask of a bunch of strangers. Anyways. What I found was that for these trades moving stops up...basically at all...actually reduced the overall profitability. One of the data points I collected while charting was where the price retraced back to after hitting a certain milestone. i.e. once the price hit the -61.8% profit level, how far back did it retrace before hitting the -100% profit level(if at all)? And same goes for the -100% profit level - how far back did it retrace before hitting the -161.8% profit level(if at all)? Well, some complex excel formulas later and here's what the results appear to be. Emphasis on appears because I honestly don't believe it. I must have done something wrong here, but I've gone over it a hundred times and I can't find anything out of place.
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 5.36%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): -1.01% (yes, a net loss)
Now, you might think exactly what I did when looking at these numbers: oof, the spread killed us there right? Because even when you move your SL to 0%, you still end up paying the spread, so it's not truly "breakeven". And because we are trading on a lower timeframe, the spread can be pretty hefty right? Well even when I manually modified the data so that the spread wasn't subtracted(i.e. "Breakeven" was truly +/- 0), things don't look a whole lot better, and still way worse than the passive trade management method of leaving your stops in place and letting it run. And that isn't even a realistic scenario because to adjust out the spread you'd have to move your stoploss inside the candle edge by at least the spread amount, meaning it would almost certainly be triggered more often than in the data I collected(which was purely based on the fib levels and mark price). Regardless, here are the numbers for that scenario:
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%
Winrate(breakeven doesn't count as a win): 46.4%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 17.97%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%
Winrate(breakeven doesn't count as a win): 65.97%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 11.60%
From a literal standpoint, what I see behind this behavior is that 44 of the 69 breakeven trades(65%!) ended up being profitable to -100% after retracing deeply(but not to the original SL level), which greatly helped offset the purely losing trades better than the partial profit taken at -61.8%. And 36 went all the way back to -161.8% after a deep retracement without hitting the original SL. Anyone have any insight into this? Is this a problem with just not enough data? It seems like enough trades that a pattern should emerge, but again I'm no expert. I also briefly looked at moving stops to other lower levels (78.6%, 61.8%, 50%, 38.2%, 23.6%), but that didn't improve things any. No hard data to share as I only took a quick look - and I still might have done something wrong overall. The data is there to infer other strategies if anyone would like to dig in deep(more explanation on the spreadsheet below). I didn't do other combinations because the formulas got pretty complicated and I had already answered all the questions I was looking to answer.
2-Candle vs Confirmation Candle Stops
Another interesting point is that the original system has the SL level(for stop entries) just at the outer edge of the 2-candle pattern that makes up the system. Out of pure laziness, I set up my stops just based on the confirmation candle. And as it turns out, that is much a much better way to go about it. Of the 60 purely losing trades, only 9 of them(15%) would go on to be winners with stops on the 2-candle formation. Certainly not enough to justify the extra loss and/or reduced profits you are exposing yourself to in every single other trade by setting a wider SL. Oddly, in every single scenario where the wider stop did save the trade, it ended up going all the way to the -161.8% profit level. Still, not nearly worth it.
As I've said many times now, I'm really not qualified to be doing an analysis like this. This section in particular. Looking at shared currency among the pairs traded, 74 of the trades are correlated. Quite a large group, but it makes sense considering the sort of moves we're looking for with this system. This means you are opening yourself up to more risk if you were to trade on every signal since you are technically trading with the same underlying sentiment on each different pair. For example, GBP/USD and AUD/USD moving together almost certainly means it's due to USD moving both pairs, rather than GBP and AUD both moving the same size and direction coincidentally at the same time. So if you were to trade both signals, you would very likely win or lose both trades - meaning you are actually risking double what you'd normally risk(unless you halve both positions which can be a good option, and is discussed in ParallaxFX's posts and in various other places that go over pair correlation. I won't go into detail about those strategies here). Interestingly though, 17 of those apparently correlated trades ended up with different wins/losses. Also, looking only at trades that were correlated, winrate is 83%/70%/55% (for the three TP levels). Does this give some indication that the same signal on multiple pairs means the signal is stronger? That there's some strong underlying sentiment driving it? Or is it just a matter of too small a sample size? The winrate isn't really much higher than the overall winrates, so that makes me doubt it is statistically significant. One more funny tidbit: EUCAD netted the lowest overall winrate: 30% to even the -61.8% TP level on 10 trades. Seems like that is just a coincidence and not enough data, but dang that's a sucky losing streak. EDIT: WOW I spent some time removing correlated trades manually and it changed the results quite a bit. Some thoughts on this below the results. These numbers also include the other "What I will trade" filters. I added a new worksheet to my data to show what I ended up picking.
Total Trades: 75
TP at -61.8%: 84.00%
TP at -100%: 73.33%
TP at -161.8%: 60.00%
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%: 53.33%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%: 53.33% (yes, oddly the exact same winrate. but different trades/profits)
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account):
TP at -61.8%: 18.13%
TP at -100%: 26.20%
TP at -161.8%: 34.01%
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%: 19.20%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%: 17.29%
To do this, I removed correlated trades - typically by choosing those whose spread had a lower % of the trade width since that's objective and something I can see ahead of time. Obviously I'd like to only keep the winning trades, but I won't know that during the trade. This did reduce the overall sample size down to a level that I wouldn't otherwise consider to be big enough, but since the results are generally consistent with the overall dataset, I'm not going to worry about it too much. I may also use more discretionary methods(support/resistance, quality of indecision/confirmation candles, news/sentiment for the pairs involved, etc) to filter out correlated trades in the future. But as I've said before I'm going for a pretty mechanical system. This brought the 3 TP levels and even the breakeven strategies much closer together in overall profit. It muted the profit from the high R:R strategies and boosted the profit from the low R:R strategies. This tells me pair correlation was skewing my data quite a bit, so I'm glad I dug in a little deeper. Fortunately my original conclusion to use the -161.8 TP level with static stops is still the winner by a good bit, so it doesn't end up changing my actions. There were a few times where MANY (6-8) correlated pairs all came up at the same time, so it'd be a crapshoot to an extent. And the data showed this - often then won/lost together, but sometimes they did not. As an arbitrary rule, the more correlations, the more trades I did end up taking(and thus risking). For example if there were 3-5 correlations, I might take the 2 "best" trades given my criteria above. 5+ setups and I might take the best 3 trades, even if the pairs are somewhat correlated. I have no true data to back this up, but to illustrate using one example: if AUD/JPY, AUD/USD, CAD/JPY, USD/CAD all set up at the same time (as they did, along with a few other pairs on 6/19/20 9:00 AM), can you really say that those are all the same underlying movement? There are correlations between the different correlations, and trying to filter for that seems rough. Although maybe this is a known thing, I'm still pretty green to Forex - someone please enlighten me if so! I might have to look into this more statistically, but it would be pretty complex to analyze quantitatively, so for now I'm going with my gut and just taking a few of the "best" trades out of the handful. Overall, I'm really glad I went further on this. The boosting of the B/E strategies makes me trust my calculations on those more since they aren't so far from the passive management like they were with the raw data, and that really had me wondering what I did wrong.
What I will trade
Putting all this together, I am going to attempt to trade the following(demo for a bit to make sure I have the hang of it, then for keeps):
"System Details" I described above.
TP at -161.8%
Static SL at opposite side of confirmation candle - I won't move stops up to breakeven.
Trade only 7am-11am and 4pm-11pm signals.
Nothing where spread is more than 25% of trade width.
Looking at the data for these rules, test results are:
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 47.43%
I'll be sure to let everyone know how it goes!
Other Technical Details
ATR is only slightly elevated in this date range from historical levels, so this should fairly closely represent reality even after the COVID volatility leaves the scalpers sad and alone.
The sample size is much too small for anything really meaningful when you slice by hour or pair. I wasn't particularly looking to test a specific pair here - just the system overall as if you were going to trade it on all pairs with a reasonable spread.
Here's the spreadsheet for anyone that'd like it. (EDIT: Updated some of the setups from the last few days that have fully played out now. I also noticed a few typos, but nothing major that would change the overall outcomes. Regardless, I am currently reviewing every trade to ensure they are accurate.UPDATE: Finally all done. Very few corrections, no change to results.) I have some explanatory notes below to help everyone else understand the spiraled labyrinth of a mind that put the spreadsheet together.
I'm on the East Coast in the US, so the timestamps are Eastern time.
Time stamp is from the confirmation candle, not the indecision candle. So 7am would mean the indecision candle was 6:00-6:59 and the confirmation candle is 7:00-7:59 and you'd put in your order at 8:00.
I found a couple AM/PM typos as I was reviewing the data, so let me know if a trade doesn't make sense and I'll correct it.
Insanely detailed spreadsheet notes
For you real nerds out there. Here's an explanation of what each column means:
Pair - duh
Date/Time - Eastern time, confirmation candle as stated above
Win to -61.8%? - whether the trade made it to the -61.8% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Win to -100%? - whether the trade made it to the -100% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Win to -161.8%? - whether the trade made it to the -161.8% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Retracement level between -61.8% and -100% - how deep the price retraced after hitting -61.8%, but before hitting -100%. Be careful to look for the negative signs, it's easy to mix them up. Using the fib% levels defined in ParallaxFX's original thread. A plain hyphen "-" means it did not retrace, but rather went straight through -61.8% to -100%. Positive 100 means it hit the original SL.
Retracement level between -100% and -161.8% - how deep the price retraced after hitting -100%, but before hitting -161.8%. Be careful to look for the negative signs, it's easy to mix them up. Using the fib% levels defined in ParallaxFX's original thread. A plain hyphen "-" means it did not retrace, but rather went straight through -100% to -161.8%. Positive 100 means it hit the original SL.
Trade Width(Pips) - the size of the confirmation candle, and thus the "width" of your trade on which to determine position size, draw fib levels, etc.
Loser saved by 2 candle stop? - for all losing trades, whether or not the 2-candle stop loss would have saved the trade and how far it ended up getting if so. "No" means it didn't save it, N/A means it wasn't a losing trade so it's not relevant.
Spread(ThinkorSwim) - these are typical spreads for these pairs on ToS.
Spread % of Width - How big is the spread compared to the trade width? Not used in any calculations, but interesting nonetheless.
True Risk(Trade Width + Spread) - I set my SL at the opposite side of the confirmation candle knowing that I'm actually exposing myself to slightly more risk because of the spread(stop order = market order when submitted, so you pay the spread). So this tells you how many pips you are actually risking despite the Trade Width. I prefer this over setting the stop inside from the edge of the candle because some pairs have a wide spread that would mess with the system overall. But also many, many of these trades retraced very nearly to the edge of the confirmation candle, before ending up nicely profitable. If you keep your risk per trade at 1%, you're talking a true risk of, at most, 1.25% (in worst-case scenarios with the spread being 25% of the trade width as I am going with above).
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -61.8% - not going to go into huge detail, see the spreadsheet for calculations if you want. But, in a nutshell, if the trade was a win to 61.8%, it returns a positive # based on 61.8% of the trade width, minus the spread. Otherwise, it returns the True Risk as a negative. Both normalized to the 1% risk you started with.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -100% - same as the last, but 100% of Trade Width.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -161.8% - same as the last, but 161.8% of Trade Width.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -100%, and move SL to breakeven at 61.8% - uses the retracement level columns to calculate profit/loss the same as the last few columns, but assuming you moved SL to 0% fib level after price hit -61.8%. Then full TP at 100%.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread take off half of position at -61.8%, move SL to breakeven, TP 100% - uses the retracement level columns to calculate profit/loss the same as the last few columns, but assuming you took of half the position and moved SL to 0% fib level after price hit -61.8%. Then TP the remaining half at 100%.
Overall Growth(-161.8% TP, 1% Risk) - pretty straightforward. Assuming you risked 1% on each trade, what the overall growth level would be chronologically(spreadsheet is sorted by date).
Based on the reasonable rules I discovered in this backtest:
Date range: 6/11-7/3
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 47.43%
Demo Trading Results
Since this post, I started demo trading this system assuming a 5k capital base and risking ~1% per trade. I've added the details to my spreadsheet for anyone interested. The results are pretty similar to the backtest when you consider real-life conditions/timing are a bit different. I missed some trades due to life(work, out of the house, etc), so that brought my total # of trades and thus overall profit down, but the winrate is nearly identical. I also closed a few trades early due to various reasons(not liking the price action, seeing support/resistance emerge, etc). A quick note is that TD's paper trade system fills at the mid price for both stop and limit orders, so I had to subtract the spread from the raw trade values to get the true profit/loss amount for each trade. I'm heading out of town next week, then after that it'll be time to take this sucker live!
Date range: 7/9-7/30
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 20.73%
Starting Balance: $5,000
Ending Balance: $6,036.51
Live Trading Results
I started live-trading this system on 8/10, and almost immediately had a string of losses much longer than either my backtest or demo period. Murphy's law huh? Anyways, that has me spooked so I'm doing a longer backtest before I start risking more real money. It's going to take me a little while due to the volume of trades, but I'll likely make a new post once I feel comfortable with that and start live trading again.
Hello and thank you for being here again! In this article I want to show you how I structure my operations by trading in the currency market. If it can give you ideas or help you in your process, the objective of this post will be more than fulfilled. I will try to be as clear and direct as possible. I'll go point by point: Index
1. How to trade
2. Intraday or swing trading in Forex?
3. Automatic or Manual Forex Trading
4. Is analysis the key to Forex trading?
5. Learn to create robust trading strategies
6. Best Forex Trading Strategies
6.1. Trading strategies with very simple entry and exit criteria
6.2. Systems with a not very high number of operations or trades
6.3. Strategies with a controlled return/risk
7. Establish connection and disconnection rules for your systems
8. Diversify in Forex
9. What currencies to trade on Forex
10. Why invest (only) in Forex
11. Steps to trade
12. How to start as a professional trader (without knowing how to program)
Focusing on the basics and keeping it simple. Let me explain, you don't have to rely on hyper-complex strategies, use the software that PETA it and put it on the server next to your broker ... you don't have to be the best programmer, much less get dirty on the graphics of your platform to win money in Forex. You need systems. The systems work. Results-oriented companies and work methods are systems-based. You should start applying and creating systems because they will allow you:
Know what you can expect (return and risk) in results.
Measure what you do .
Know when what you are applying is stopping working.
Yes, that sitting in front of the computer, looking and saying "I think EUR / USD is going to rise" is the most common thing, but the normal thing here is to lose money. You need winning strategies to start the fight.
2. Intraday or swing trading in Forex?
This question is an interesting question and I make a small indent if you are just starting out. Swing trading are operations that usually last several days and when we talk about intraday or day trading we refer to operations that are closed on the same day. Well, which one then? Like everything in life, it depends (we are). You have to learn that there is no “best for all”. In my case I combine both operations because I dedicate myself full time to this, but if you are just starting out or are one of the people who get stressed out with trading, I recommend that you focus on swing trading. As you consolidate here you can start to scale and seek to diversify by doing intraday. But again, this is just something that I recommend based on my own experience and from people I have known over the years.
3. Automatic or Manual Forex Trading
Not all automated Forex trading systems are a panacea, nor are all discretionary or manual systems bad. Stop looking at it like that, we're only talking about execution. This is precisely why I am opting for automated execution. We could talk at length about this and if you find it interesting I can dedicate an article just to it. But think that automation is just how strategy is carried out. Whether this is a winner or a loser is the basis of everything. Automating a losing strategy does not make it a winner, it is only about applying strategies that are profitable and ensuring that they are executed in the best way (in manual we always cheat alone).
4. Is analysis the key to Forex trading?
Many people think that technical analysis is the key to beating the market and defend it to the last consequences. The same happens with those who think that the only way to make money in the foreign exchange market is through fundamental analysis. So what really works? What really works and you can check. What good is it if you tell me that this or the other is the best method if you haven't even sat down to draw numbers. Many times it is not with what, but how. That is, they can be different valid methods if they are done well. But for this you need statistics of what you are doing. >>>Recommended Forex Broker: Plus500 - Visit official website<<<
5. Learn to create robust trading strategies
Let's first see what a robust trading strategy is all about. As traders, we know what has happened in the past, but we don't know what will happen in the market tomorrow. That is why we need systems that are well adapted to changing market circumstances. How can we know systems adapt well to alterations in the spread, prices ...? Simulating those alterations, something like simulating those conditions and seeing how they behave. There are different tests for this such as: Walk Forward test, Montecarlo, and Multimarket. These tests give us an idea of how robust our created trading system is and give us a reference. Be careful, I said reference, not absolute truth. Then we will test them, our goal is to leave as little space as possible to chance.
6. Best Forex Trading Strategies
You may be wondering how you are going to manage to create profitable strategies and start with all this. Calm down, there are tools for this, but the important thing here is that you know that the strategies that tend to be more stable over time and give better results are:
6.1. Trading strategies with very simple entry and exit criteria
The opposite of what you may have been told. The simpler our Forex trading systems are, the more likely they will continue to work overtime. I have seen this myself and I know it first hand. Also, which is more likely to stop working, a system based on six indicators or a system based on one or two? That six indicators continue to give results for years and years is not easy. Instead, only one or two are more so. Still, trading systems should always be supervised.
6.2. Systems with a not very high number of operations or trades
Sometimes when we become obsessed with being in the market constantly making gazillions of trades, we are giving our broker money and taking it out of our pocket. More is not better in trading, better is better. This is about getting the most money with the least risk, not giving it to your broker.
7. Establish connection and disconnection rules for your systems
All methods of trading sound great. The problem is when they start to lose. Some tell you that you have to continue, that the system is the system… But what if the system is stopping working? After all, we live in a changing world and our money is not infinite. The reality is that many people do not know how to determine when the system is failing or when this happens because they are applying it incorrectly. If you execute the strategies in an automated way you are already saving this, then what you need is a rule to deactivate your strategies at a certain point. To do this, it is enough to monitor them with platforms such as Bluefox or Myfxbook to know what the performance of each is.
8. Diversify in Forex
If we deactivate a Rubén strategy, we stop trading. Not if you activate another that has been doing it well. It is not about you running a Forex trading system or two, it is about having different systems: the best in real and a demo base created that you can include in your real account when you deactivate one because their performance has dropped. You can diversify by youI frame (temporality time) on assets (currencies) or types of systems (trend, mean reversion ...). The objective of diversifying is to seek a more stable return, many people do for this is to introduce many systems without more, if you do this you will achieve the opposite, you will be increasing the risk.
I will not be the one to tell you that you should invest in Forex and not in another market. Each one belongs to his father and mother and has its good and not so good things. Of course, one thing is clear, wherever you do it, remember the power of specialization. There are traders who focus on one or two assets and they are profitable. In the end, that's what it's all about, isn't it? This operation can be extrapolated to different assets such as raw materials, indices and cryptocurrencies. Yes, cryptocurrencies too. In fact, my operations are mainly based on currencies and cryptocurrencies (85% in the first group and 15% in the second). But I have to say that cryptocurrency trading has given me a pleasant surprise this year. Again, if you are starting, do not do it with many assets or you will saturate yourself. Start step by step and diversify as you evolve. Jack of all trades, master of none.
11. Steps to trade Forex Reddit
If you've gotten this far, it may not be entirely clear to you how the hell I trade, then I'm going to summarize it in steps:
I create statistically profitable trading strategies and verify through tests that they are robust.
I put them on a demo account to make sure they work perfectly.
Once they meet the requirements that I demand of them, I pass them to real.
In real account, I manage my systems connecting and disconnecting them according to their performance (always under objective criteria).
12. How to start trading Forex Reddit as a professional trader (without knowing how to program)
But Rubén, I haven't studied computer science and I'm not particularly good at math. Don't worry if you don't know how to program, it is possible to do all this using tools that will do it for you. For years I have programmed my own systems myself and that's fine, but now I'm concentrating on managing them and getting the most out of them. Do not think that this is the robot that will make you earn millions of euros while you drink the gin and tonic on the beach. We will read soon with new posts about trading, Forex, cryptocurrencies, platforms ... Good luck! To start trading, open an account on Plus500, one of the leading Forex brokers: Click Here
Now's a good time for to get a lesson in the greeks you fucking retards. This document outlines the relative risks and rewards of certain trading strategies and how to manage risks along with some basic math and econ. This should be basic for most of you. Why do stocks go up? Because capital growth has a diminishing returns to scale. In the long run capital is used to create more capital generating growth until it balances with capital depreciation which is linear. You can increase the equilibrium capital accumulation by increasing savings rates essentially trading off short run consumption for long run consumption. The implications of this are that less capital intensive economies grow at faster rates than developed because developed economies are very close to hitting the equilibrium point and have to rely on technological advancements for long run growth. Not every economy is equal though, all have differences in economic institutions, government effectiveness and political norms which will also affect their long run effectiveness. Long story short if the government engages in ineffective policies like protectionism, price manipulation, overly burdensome regulations, underregulation, or inefficient redistribution programs the short run micro/macro picture will be hurt and reflected in the long run picture. The US has had a thriving stock market despite having relatively low growth because it has taken the first mover advantage in many industries. Global Tech, higher education, finance, and pharma are all centered in the US because the US policies have made doing business in the US the optimal choice for these industries. For as long as the US is a capitalist nation you can be sure that the stock market will go up in the long run. This is not necessarily the case for commodities or forex as higher growth has typically led to investments in productive efficiency outweighing increased demand in raw materials and exchange rates do not have a long run trend. Fundamentally, the stock market is a good place to invest savings into in the long run. Stocks and exponential returns. Stocks go up so you want to capture the value of price increases. Stocks have a delta of one and a gamma of zero resulting in a linear return to movement of the stock price. Long run capital accumulation, although diminishing, is still exponential and in the long run will return an exponentially increasing return to investment on stock. Linear gains * exponential increase in underlying = exponential gains. But what if things go down? In the short run stocks decrease in value at exponential rates which is absolutely fantastic for investors because exponential declines are diminishing in scale. 10% of 100 is 10, 10% of 90 is 9, 10% of 81 is less and so on and so forth. You may get linear returns from movement but you receive increasing returns to scale gains on the upside and decreasing returns to scale losses on the downside. Delta and Gamma Long options have even better fundamentals than stocks because they amplify the exponentiality through gamma. As an option moves into the money its delta increases creating exponential gains in value. As an option moves out of the money delta decreases, lowering losses. Thus options while having more risk per dollar than stocks have far superior risk returns in the short run. Theta and Vega The opposite is true of selling a call and you're put into the position of wanting to sell when times are most dire and hold when times are good. In exchange you get benefit from theta decay but if you can reasonably predict the movement of the market that's pretty much nothing compared to the gains from delta you could get investing the same amount of money into long calls. Selling also requires way more money further reducing its risk to return. But what about vega? When markets crash, volatility skyrockets. Long calls gain and the opposite is true once again for selling them. Mathematically, buying longs has the best return on risk of any option strategy but higher absolute losses when delta doesn't move in your favor. Selling longs or spreads has a way worse return to risk but you'll lose less money when delta moves against you and it's harder for any one position to lose all of its value. Theta gang isn't more profitable than bullgang, it's less risky per dollar spent. The reason market makers don't play like WSB retards is because they play on margin and the 20-30% losses we typically take and make back buying longs would cause their investors to flee bankrupting them. Strategy implications Longs
If you can reasonably predict positive price movement these should be your go to position to capture delta and gamma. Otm has better delta to price but comes at the cost of worse theta to price. I recommend getting slightly OTM options to balance collecting gamma with exposure to theta risk.
Optimal position size: The total size of spy correlated longs should not exceed 25-50% of your account balance. Only double down on a losing position if your longs get blown up. Your risk return from delta gets better the more blown up your contracts get and exponential gains can bring you back to green.
When to sell? Sell when you think there's a chance risk from theta or vega might outweigh delta gains. Also sell when the underlying moves against you but that should be obvious. Delta goes up the more you go into the money so its better to hold winners than profit take early when possible.
Profit taking: If you don't want bail from a position completely when you profit take consider selling a call to lock in most of your profits while retaining some delta risk with a debt spread.
You will take losses buying tons of longs but if you do it right your winners will outweigh your losers easily.
Selling naked longs
If you're doing wheel, go for it. Selling naked longs shouldn't be done otherwise unless you want to park your cash somewhere and bond yields are too long for your liking or you anticipate a IV decrease. The tradeoff is receiving gains from theta, smaller delta per dollar spent(lower risk) and less options leverage.
For all intents and purposes OTM credit spreads are like selling naked with more leverage.
Edit: The prior statement was kinda wrong. Selling a wide credit spread is like selling a long. There's still a tradeoff with reduced gains from theta and reduced delta.
When deciding between debt or credit make a prediction about whether IV will increase or decrease and whether you want risk up front or later.
Absolutely do not buy OTM debit spreads in any situation where you wouldn't buy the same position as a credit spread. Compared to a long call you're reducing your delta and vega in exchange for the possibility of theta gains as you reach the short leg of your spread. If you actually managed to reach the short leg of your debt spread before expiration a long call would have made many times more money and now you're stuck sitting on your debt spread waiting for theta to decay it to its maximum value at expiration. Every youtube resource I've seen on debt spread pricing is wrong, if your spread goes completely in the money you will not have something worth max value, you will have something that decays towards max value akin to a close to the money credit spread.
The best usage for OTM debt spreads is as hedges where you think the price will reach a certain point at some specific point in the future and you're worried about adverse movements in delta or IV between now and then.
Edit: For what to do with your cash position, you could put it into gold, bonds, bond etfs, non spy correlated stocks or whatever. Low risk theta gang strats are fine in bull markets but don't expect to make real money from them. I'm cash since volatility is high, u do u.
HEALth... A back story leading me to seek some answers
I would just like to share my experience with veganism and diet in general.. Before December 2018, I was in a very unconscious state of being. In 2016 my parents divorced after 20 years, I was sexually assaulted 2 different times when I was 16 and one of those times was in a horrific accident in the same night. Long story short, I had plenty of healing to do on my plate. Leading up to December 2018 I had done acid many times and never had any crazy breakthroughs OTHER than the fact I truly saw the universal energy all around and wasn’t able to depict what it even was till years later. It was fun, opened my mind a bit and taught me some little lessons regardless. Summer 2018 right when I graduated high school I ate mushrooms for my first time by my self because I was desperate, suicidal, self destructive as fuck... Deep down I knew there was nothing left to lose. This first mushroom trip I remembered the ecstasy of what it is to be alive, I cried tears of gratitude and joy for even existing for hours. Internally I began forgiving myself and others for all of the pain... It was life altering to say the least in the best way possible. This experience was in July 2018ish, I still had so much unraveling of all my traumas to do that I wasn’t fully aware of yet... From July 2018- Dec 2018 I still lived out my self destructive ways of being; drinking till I was blacked out, not eating the best, sleeping around with whomever would give me the slightest bit of acknowledgment. Mind you, I had everything I could’ve needed materialistically my entire life.. Both my parents were still alive, I just graduated, I had food water and shelter and clothes and many other nice things that would appear on the outside like I was set and had all I needed. I ate pretty balanced my entire life, my mom cooked great and I’ve always been what I would consider healthy and vibrant even when I ate an omnivorous diet all of my life. I’ve always struggled with dairy my entire life and that was it really so it was exempt from my overall intake anyways. Come December 2018 I was in what felt like the densest, darkest hole in my entire existence. I was extremely suicidal, I thought about it every day and how I was going to be successful with it.. I was truly living out some of the most self destructive behaviors I could ever imagine now. A few weeks into Dec 2018 I started hanging out with someone I went to school with and briefly knew. His name was Dan. Dan and I ate acid one of the first nights him and I hung out and he informed me about all of the things about the Matrix and how it was created to keep us trapped and how all of the things that exist within it; tv, food, media, work did it. I already had a little background on 9/11 and flat earth and stuff so I already had a basis on which I was skeptical on quite a few things already but nothing like what was presented to me by Dan. This same night I found myself being attracted to Dan and what he was sharing with me despite me truly understanding any of it at the time. He looked at me with disgust and informed me that he could see in my energy I had a lot of things to go “deal with”... I did not understand what this meant for some time. I was very attracted to Dan from the jump meanwhile he repelled me and did not show any interest. This same night Dan advised me to stop eating any and all animal products, get rid of TV, social media, start trading Forex and learn how to work for myself... This night I stopped consuming any and all animal products, gave up alcohol that I had so heavily relied on- cold turkey, got rid of my TV, bought a desk and started investing in my self and books... Weeks go by from this night and I spent every day from this night pondering all the information I’d been given from Dan. I was doing a lot of research on the matrix and a lot of things started making sense. On December 31st 2018 I decided to eat mushrooms alone, again. I was still feeling very suicidal. Once again, feeling like there was absolutely nothing to lose. This experience was truly one of the most ineffable out of the ones I’ve had. It started great feeling good and it took a very unexpected turn... The walls started melting, I was soaked in sweat, I was crying so hard, my ego was in the midst of a death that saved my life... During the crying, sweating and walls melting a voice said to me “are you sure you’re ready to leave? have you really done all that you feel like you came here to do? because you can but the choice is yours” and from there I exclaimed out loud “No I am not ready to die. I have so much to do still” My soul seriously felt like it was going to leave my body right then and there if I said yes I was ready..... And from here..... My life completely changed. Dan and I started hanging out everyday. He tried teaching my how to trade forex and everything he could about breaking out of the Matrix. Our entire lives revolves around this for awhile.... I was vegan for 6+ months. I felt great for a while, I felt light and clear. I was breaking out so bad frequently which I felt like was either from kissing Dan who had acne which spread to me, or all of the vegan alternatives that were wrecking havoc on my system, the constant state of stress I was in.. It was probably a mix of things. I apprentice plumber and live in New England so by the time winter came around I was starting to feel fatigue and brain fog.. So I started eating meat again and felt back to my balanced, healthy self. During all the time I was vegan I became intolerant of almost all food it felt like... Couldn’t do any gluten or sugar and any time I did resulted in bloat and discomfort for hours on end... Because of Veganism I tried soooooooo many different variations of diets. I juice fasted for weeks, ate nothing but raw fruits and veggies for a while... Fasted a lot I’m general. I was farming for a while so while I was I felt amazing even without meat... And then like I said winter came and my body started taking a turn for the worst it seemed.. My bile was basically water every single time. It seemed like I had a reaction to every single thing I ate until I started eating meat again... And not every day either- it was a very intuitive thing and I ate it when I felt like I needed it. I do not support animal cruelty whatsoever which is why veganism was so appealing to me. I never ate meat because I wanted to hurt animals in the first place. I ate what I was raised by my entire life.. and looking back the way I ate never seemed to be the cause of issues in my life.. It always genuinely came down to lack of emotional support from my caregivers and those around me even myself, traumas that had happened to me.. etc etc. During my 6+ months of no animal products- I binged regularly, I had incessant cravings all day every day for any and everything it seemed like... I was extremely emotionally unstable... Meanwhile on the outside it was ALL “LOVE & LIGHT :D”.... Inside I was suffering so deeply and just didn’t feel balanced. I was supplementing with Cymbiotika and a bunch of other vegan replacements. The more I heal my wounds and become more of what feels like my true self the more I feel like I am able to listen to what my body and Self truly needs to feel healthy and that comes down to my body truly thriving better when I implement strictly local and grass fed beef.. I ritualize this process as much as I am able to. I still think about all of the vegan ideologies and animal suffering which is why I try to be as mindful as possible about all of my consumption. One part of me says “eating meat will interfere with spiritual channel within”, there is no justifying killing any and all animals, live for the animals meanwhile restricting Self of that which it knows it wants and needs to have healthy life... The other part says “what about the plants? Why aren’t they acknowledged for their sentient intelligence?”, why is all the focus just on animals and how they feel? Why don’t vegans or plant based individuals consider the suffering that may be caused by a plant being disconnected from its network (family) + roots? Why isn’t ripping a plant out of the ground to be consumed considered to be just as cruel as raising animals to be consumed? I don’t have all the answers... But vegan, plant based, carnivorous, omnivorous all share one thing in common which is considering the energy and place of that which you may be getting any of these things come from.. Plants and animals come from the Earth, therefore they are natural.. Especially when grown and raised with awareness and given their best lives possible... If we are all one and all interconnected why are plants and animals given such a distinct separation that one is more valuable than the other? Or one feels more than the other? There is no justifying animal cruelty but that also just goes back to the energy and place of that which you are getting your products to consume from... Getting ANY thing whether it’s plant based or not from any where that you don’t know where it comes from seems to be the real issue.. Being disconnected from our source... You can buy all the plant based sources from the grocer you want, but if it’s not local or grown to the best of abilities, given proper tlc, coming from any place that you don’t know- it’s exactly the equivalent of buying meat off the shelf at any grocer having the same disconnect from both sources... Life and death are inevitable. We are mortal beings here on Earth and for some reason I feel there is a lot of premonition that if you are Vegan you are more spiritual, will be healthier, live longer.. Why do I feel more balanced and grounded when I consume meat then? Why do I have more concentration when I consume meat? Why does my body seem to thrive when I consume meat? The answer comes down to individuality at the end of the day... & the quality of that which you use as a source of consumption for ANYthing.... not just meat. When you eat a plant, you interrupted it’s life for your survival. When you eat an animal, you also interrupted its life for your survival. For what? So we can live... & continue the eternal cycles of life and death... When we die, Mother Earth eats at our decay for food for herself... & it appears to be a never ending cycle... I’m doing what appears to be working for me. But I can’t seem to rid myself of the very low level of guilt I’ve programmed into myself from the times I’ve not consumed any animal products.. Just seeking some perspectives If anyone has any to share. I don’t think I am right and anyone else is wrong.. I just feel like there’s so much information along the lines of these things that it can cause confusion if one doesn’t know themselves or their bodies... So any discussion to distinguish some clarity amongst all of it is very much welcomed... I send you so much love, I truly do. I hope we are all eventually able to radically accept and integrate what it means to be healthy and human and do whatever it takes to be humane about doing that in whatever fashion best suits each individual...
Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.
This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant. However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.
When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
New Cold War with drastically reduced economic ties
China resolve their tensions, integrate and run the world together
Transactional US-China relationship of the sort during the 1980s
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy
Other countries like Japan and South Korea to dependent on China. Too integrated.
Raise objections to Belt and Road. But no alternative
My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed. International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter. The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US. The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.
OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION
Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000). The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914. Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels. Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm. The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism. As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.
BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA
According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
Provisions to protect IP
Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.
China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations. I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO. WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT. The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule. In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak. Here is the commitment paragraph for China "The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. " This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics. NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.
REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH
I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access. Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress. THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes. Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English. Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic, IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box. So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure: In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.
https://preview.redd.it/xhkyxbzyw5g31.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ec0b917415754820fbf66ffa09cb73cfff1bca9 Introduction People depict trading as a platform to earn money and become rich, which only happens for the one who puts in the effort to attain. Trading is of many types, forex, stocks, bonds, commodities, and derivatives. Here we are going to discuss commodity trading, what it is, and how to do commodity trading. Commodity trading As like other trading markets, commodity trading also has two types: hard and soft, buying, and selling. Buying and selling come under raw commodities. Hard commodities are natural resources, and soft commodities are agricultural goods. These trades happen in separate exchanges and for each type of commodity there are separate exchanges. The world's most precious and valuable commodities are,
Saffron, and much more.
Apart from this, there are different varieties of commodities related to agriculture and energy commodities. Basics of trading The commodity market is like the other markets; you can buy, sell, and trade different types of other commodities. You can do commodity trading in futures contract also. Before knowing about commodities, knowing how to trade; it is essential to know that the traders always choose commodity trading. Because it is mostly traded and has high liquidity. How commodity trading works Commodity trading has been prevailing for many years, and many products are there in commodity trading. Usually, the trader trades a commodity for future delivery and pays the required amount. The trader can receive profit only when the price rises between the purchase date and the delivery date; if not, the trader tends to lose money. The profound price change in the market can happen when there is less supply or more. The scarcity can lead to an increase in the price. Commodity trading is directly tied to supply and demand. How to start commodity trading It is good to start commodity trading once you learn what commodity is and how it works. Know your trading style and analyze the net worth what you are going to invest in. Choose the right commodity through which you can earn money. Choosing the type of commodity is more important than the amount you are going to invest. Know which commodities are surviving well in the market, so that you can invest in commodities which provide you profit. The difference in demand In commodity trading, the energy commodity trade can be affected by government policy. Agricultural commodities are affected by weather change. Usage of certain products may stop by considering the health factors; for example, since research shows the negative health effects of sugar, the usage and demand have decreased. Sometimes, certain agricultural goods become high demand, and the price arises. These are the basic things which happen in commodity trading. However, with trading commodity CFDs, profit is achievable from a falling market as well as a rising market. Commodity CFDs Like other types of trading, CFD is between a trader and a broker. When it is CFD trading, you can speculate the changes in the market by not even owning the product. CFD trading is not said to be easy, but there are benefits like leverage, zero commission, and profits from the direction of the market. Benefits of trading commodity CFDs
Negative Balance Protection
Spreads from 0 pips
The main benefit of the commodity when you are an investor,
Benefit when you are an importer or exporter,
Hedge against price fluctuation
Conclusion Though all traders consider commodity trading, it is crucial to be cautious. Before making any decisions, choose the commodity broker appropriately since you are going to invest your money. Choose a broker who is more experienced and who is maintaining a level of reputation. Check whether you are comfortable with the broker and clarify the fee structure before signing up.
IC Markets boasts some of the tightest spreads of all forex brokers globally. Spreads start at 0.0 pips on the MetaTrader 4 and 5 platforms with the average on EURUSD being 0.1 pips 24/5. This is currently one of the tightest average EURUSD spread globally. Our pricing connector, aggregates a mix from up to 25 different prices providers, that means that we are always able to source the best ... The Raw Spread Advantage . Raw Spreads are the difference you’ve been waiting for. Trade with spreads from 0.0 pips*, no requotes, best possible prices and no restrictions. IC Markets is the online Forex CFD provider of choice for high volume traders, scalpers and robots. 01. Spreads from. 0.0 pips . IC Markets EURUSD Avg spread of 0.1 is one of the best in the world** Raw spreads means ... Forex Market Makers Determine the Spread . The forex market differs from the New York Stock Exchange, where trading historically took place in a physical space.The forex market has always been virtual and functions more like the over-the-counter market for smaller stocks, where trades are facilitated by specialists called market makers.The buyer may be in London, and the seller may be in Tokyo. What are Fixed Spreads in Forex? Fixed spreads stay the same regardless of what market conditions are at any given time. In other words, whether the market is volatile like Kanye’s moods or quiet as a mouse, the spread is not affected. It stays the same. Fixed spreads are offered by brokers that operate as a market maker or “dealing desk” model. Using a dealing desk, the broker buys ... The majority of Forex brokerages using a ECN/STP execution model apply a mark-up to the spreads they receive from liquidity providers or those matched up using their Electronic Communication Network (ECN). For instance, a liquidity provider might quote a brokerage a 0.3 pip spread on the EUR/USD, the brokerage does not pass this ‘raw spread’ onto their customers and instead place a mark-up ... Spreads not announced, d emo ones above the average. Another thing that leaves a bad impression on Raw Forex’s website is the fact that spreads are not disclosed. This immediately lowers the credibility level of a forex broker. Raw Forex' demo MT4. Click on the image to zoom-in. When we tested the broker’s demo MT4, we noticed the spread on EUR/USD floating around 1.7 pips. Such spreads ... Raw spread. Close • Posted by just now ... Hey i was wondering if any forex traders can share how long it took them to become profitable, not pro, just to where you were able to win more then lose. Other Questions. 62. 50 comments. share. save. hide. report. 61. Posted by 4 days ago. Please be aware of this scammer ⚠️ . 61. 23 comments. share. save. hide. report. 57. Posted by 4 days ago ... Top Forex Brokers with Starting From 0 Pip Spreads. Broker Info Bonus Open Account; Min Deposit: $5 Spread: From 0.2 Pips Leverage: 500:1 Regulation: FSA (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), CySEC ... You find this account offers some of the tightest spreads in the online forex industry. Which means savings when it comes to your costs. To keep tight spreads, IC Markets instead charge a commission of AUD $7.00 or USD $7.oo round turn. IC Markets MetaTrader Raw Spread account distinguishing features: Narrow spreads with ECN (RAW) pricing Raw spreads. Global markets. Fast Execution. Tight Forex begins at ZERO. Start Trading or try a demo. Get Started Why Zero Markets Forex Spreads FAQ & Support. Your Account Open Account Try a Demo Fund Account Withdraw Money. Platforms ...
What is the spread Forex Training Courses Plan B ...
Get more information about IG US by visiting their website: https://www.ig.com/us/future-of-forex Get my trading strategies here: https://www.robbooker.com C... "What is the spread" is one of the questions answered at http://www.planbtrading.com. "What is the spread" looks at the concept of spreads when trading Forex... Published on Jun 4, 2011. This video compares a Pepperstone Razor ECN Raw Spread Account with Alpari and Fin FX. The charts all have a spread indicator setup to show the current spread. https ... Lesson 6: What is a spread in forex? - Duration: 6:43. Rob Booker Trading 91,872 views. 6:43. Low Spread Forex Brokers - Top 3 Forex Brokers For Scalping 2020 - Duration: 15:23. ... This Real Forex Basics Video will give beginners an insight to what spreads are! This is something a lot of people skip over but I’d a great beginner video t...