Understanding Forex Bid & Ask Prices and the Bid/Ask Spread
Understanding Forex Bid & Ask Prices and the Bid/Ask Spread
What is the Bid and Ask Spread? ThinkMarkets
Bid and Ask - Definition, Example, How it Works in Trading
What Is the Bid and Ask in Forex? [2020 Update]
Bid vs Ask - How to Interpret Buying and Selling Pressure ...
What are Bid, Ask and Forex spread? - FBS
Bid and Ask Price Explained - Here's what you need to know
A random guide for scalping - Part V - Understanding Intraday Liquidity
Hi there guys, Welcome back to my weekly rants. Decided to add some info that should be pretty useful to your daily trading, thanks to the comments of u/Neokill1 and u/indridcold91. If you have not read the rest of the series, I recommend you take your time and read those before continuing with this piece (check my user activity and scroll down...) This rant is based on this little comment I posted on the last post: Price moves because of the imbalance between buying and selling. This happens all the time. Price move where liquidity is, and that seeking of liquidity makes the price to go up and down. Why price extends on a particular direction? Because longer term players decide it. So the idea behind what I'm writing about is to follow that longer-term trend, taking advantage of a counter-trend wave that is looking for intra-day liquidity. If I'm bullish on the week, I want to pair my buying with intra-day selling. Because I expect longer-term traders to push price by buying massively. And instead of riding a big wave, I want to ride that push and get out before it retraces. And also answers to this: why for example would it make sense to draw support/resistance lines on a EUUSD chart? Why would anyone "support" the price of a spread?What are you predicting to happen by drawing those lines, that someone will exchange their currency there simply because it's the same price they exchanged it for in the past and that number is special to them? A good question that deserves an answer That question is a pretty good one, and one any trader worth of that name should ask himself why. Why price reacts the way it does? Why price behaves in predetermined ways? Why if I draw a line or area on specific candle places, I expect the price to react? And the answer is simple and at the same time kinda complicated and fascinating. Why price rallies and rallies andd rallies and then suddenly it stops at a point ,and reverses? . The answer is , because there are sellers at that point. There is liquidity there. There is people at that point that decided it was worth to sell enough to reverse that rally. All the market does is to put together buyers and sellers. If you want to buy something at some price, someone must agree with you. If no ones agrees, then you will have to offer more. When buyers and sellers agree on similar terms, price is stable. Buying and selling happens on a tight range, because both consider that particular price range worth. But then, perhaps, someone wants to buy big. And there are not enough sellers. This big boy will dry the available liquidity , and it is hungry for more. So price will move from a balanced state to an imbalanced state. This imbalance in volume between buyers and sellers will cause the price to move up, taking all available liquidity till the monster is satiated. Then the exhaustion of bids, or buying, will cause the price to reverse to a point where buying interest is back. The same applies for selling activity. The main take away you should get from this is simply that the market keeps moving from balance to imbalance to balance to imbalance all the time. And the points where the big bois deploy this activity of buying , of selling, of protecting levels, of slowly entering the markets, are mostly predetermined. Surprised? Most of the institutional activity happens at : 00 ,20, 50 and 80 levels. So why drawing a line makes sense? It makes sense because when price stalls at some point, is because sellers or buyers stepped in and stopped the movement. Its a level where something interesting is happening. It's a level where liquidity was present, and the question is, what is going to happen the next time price touches the area? Is someone stepping in to buy or sell at this point? Or perharps the first touch dried the liquidity, and there is nothing preventing price from going up again?? Lets see a real example of a trade I took today on GBPUSD, where I analyze step by step the balance and imbalance of the market liquidity in real time at those levels. The only way to see this is usingfutures. Because forex is a decentralized market and blah blah blah, and futures are centralized so you can see the volume, the limit orders through the DOM and blah blah blah.... So first things first, read well this articule : https://optimusfutures.com/tradeblog/archives/order-flow-trading Understand well what is said there. Take it easy. Take your time. And then come back to me. If you have followed my work, you know how I like to ride the market. I want a retracement on the most liquid moment in the market - the NY-London Overlap, and I need a daily BIAS on the pair. For today, I'm bullish on the GBPUSD. So lets check the pics. https://imgur.com/a/kgev9lT The areas you see marked on the 30 min charts are based on the price relationships that happened last Friday. As you can see, those areas are always in a place where price stalled, retraced, pushed through,came back to the area and reacted in some way. Are those black magic? Why price reacts so smoothly today on them? Ah you Criptochihuahua, this is 20/20 insight, you are lying.... Those points are marked before today's open, simply because of the price relationship I described earlier. And if you remember the earlier rant, price stalls in there because sellers or buyers were present. So I would expect that the levels are still interesting, and we should be watching carefully how price reacts in real time. Now, today I got at 1.2680 and got out at 1.2725. Let's check the 2nd pic, keep following the narrative with your own charts. What you are seeing is the first touch at the big figure with the total volume chart, and the bid/ask order flow chart. You can see how the price is pulled toward that level through the exhaustion of offers being filled. You can see how exactly they are depleted at 15:51. Why? Because at the next min, you can see how there are no offers being filled, compared to the bids. Remember, when offers are getting filled , price pulls up. When the bids are predominantly being filled, price is pulled down. And also take a look on the volume. This is key. If an imbalance is to happen, is because there should be a huge difference between bids and asks. Good volume on such a level, good sign. Price hugging the level without good volume, the level will most likely be broken. Look at the next pic. See the price behavior in combination with the volume? Price is hugging the level on low volume. Great signal. That means the level is not that greatly defended, at this point. What are we looking for? We are looking for the bids to be exhausted at our next level with a good volume reaction. Watch what happens. Next pic is our retracement , and we are watching carefully. And look at that beauty. Do you see the volume? Do you see the bids exhaustion? Do you see how the market orders are getting absorbed by the limit orders at that point? Someone does not want the price to go down. Price jumps as a result. It does not huge the level. Do you see? I'm all in, I want to take part of this trade. But wait, there is more.... look at the next pic, because you yet have another opportunity to get into this train.... at 17:23.. Even a bigger reaction, while on the other side.... we got more hugging... No more pics for today. You see what happens next. The level gets broken and price rallies to take the previous day high. Trade was a success. So I hope this added some value, and explained why drawing lines is useful, and how levels are indeed defended. P.S - I lied: Extra Pic, you got a VWAP chart with Standard Deviations. You can see how the pullback nicely fits in our long framework as well and adds confluence to the trade. Research about this :)
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.
Binary option trading is a relatively new development in the retail trading world. Five years ago, no one had even heard of it. Since 2012 however, the popularity of binary options surged as a result of aggressive marketing by binary option brokers, and the promotion of binary trading software by the trading "gurus". Right now, interest on the topic continues to grow at record levels. Given its current popularity, binary options are likely to be the first "asset" that beginners start trading with. However, just because something is new and popular... doesn't mean it's worth doing. (Who remembers the fuss over bitcoin trading?) Opportunities come and go all the time in the retail trading space... and it's important for us to tell the difference between sustainable business models and short-lived fads. So let's take a moment to examine binary options, and see if it's something we should be paying attention to. But before we do that, let's first take a quick look at traditional (i.e. vanilla) option contracts. VANILLA FOREX OPTIONS Traditional option contracts were initially introduced for people to hedge against future uncertainty. For example, a German company selling cars in the United States would worry about high EUUSD exchange rates in the future. Why? Because then they would be getting revenue in a weaker currency (USD) while having to pay expenses in a stronger currency (Euro) in their home country. This results in a significantly lower net profit, or even worse, a net loss. Forex option contracts were thus introduced to solve this problem, as any losses stemming from currency fluctuations could be offset by profits made from buying options contracts. To continue with the example, the German car company may choose to buy EUUSD call options, which would profit from an increasing EUUSD rate. Thus, any operational losses in the future (due to a high EUUSD rate) can be offset by the profits gained from those option contracts. This is, and continues to be, the main purpose of Forex option contracts. Now of course, in order for the German company to buy call options, someone has to be willing to sell it to them. Perhaps, a financial institution in France does not believe that the EUUSD will continue to strengthen over the next 12 months, and so is willing sell call options to the German company. (This, by the way, is how financial markets work. Participants have varying views of the future, and so trade against each other in line with their own expectations.) In this transaction, the German company pays a fee (in buying call options) to protect against future currency risk, while the financial institution gets paid to take on that risk. To summarize:
- The German car company looks to limit future currency risk by buying call options - The financial institution (or speculator) collects a fee from selling call options and assumes the currency risk
- Option buyers pay a fixed fee for the potential of a very large profit - Option sellers collect a fixed fee for the potential of a very large loss
FOREX BINARY OPTIONS In a vanilla option trade, the buyer does not know in advance the amount of money he stands to win. Similarly, the seller does not know in advance the amount of money he stands to lose. The amount is ultimately determined by how far the market price moves. In a binary option trade however, the trader will know in advance the exact amount he stands to win or lose, before taking the trade. Binary options are named as such because there are exactly only two possible outcomes: you either win a fixed amount, or lose a fixed amount. Binary options ask a simple question: will the price be above [price level] at [time]? For example: will the EUUSD be above 1.3000 at 4.30pm? If you think so, you buy the binary option. If you don't, you sell. That's pretty much all there is to binary options. UPSIDE OF BINARY OPTIONS As you can see, binary option trading can be simply explained and is easily understood. This is a big benefit to new traders, as they can quickly learn the basic mechanics and start trading right away. A related benefit of this, is having to make fewer trading decisions. In spot forex trading, for example, one has to decide:
- Where and when to enter the market - The appropriate trading lot size to use - How to manage the trade - Where and when to close the trade
In binary option trading however, there are only 2 decisions to make:
- Whether the market price will be above a certain price level at a certain time - How much to risk on the trade
As such, binary options offer a much simpler trading process. You don’t have to think about (or calculate) leverage and margin at all. And, since the potential loss on each trade is fixed, you will never get a margin call. Lastly, options offer traders the unique ability to make money by predicting where prices will NOT go. (This goes for all types of options, not just binary options.) This can’t be done in the spot Forex market. So… does binary option trading sound good? Sure it does! Well... at first glance, anyway. Now let’s take a look at the downsides of binary option trading. These are the things your binary option broker won’t tell you. DOWNSIDE OF BINARY OPTIONS TRADING The most obvious downside of binary option trading is the lack of flexibility. For example, if the market price moves even one pip against you upon option expiry, you’ll lose your entire stake. You can’t choose to defer your trade exit under any circumstances. Also, with some binary option brokers, you can’t change your mind and close or modify a trade before expiry. In this sense, a binary option trade is typically an all-or-nothing proposition. These points on inflexibility can be summarized by the following comment (found in the Forex Factory forums): "I once traded a forex news item where I closed a wrong call with a 20 pips loss, and ended up making 350 pips on the reverse trade, giving me a net profit of 330 pips. This scenario cannot be replicated in binary options.” Lastly, the value of a binary option is fixed between 0 and 100, with the broker charging a bid-ask spread and often, a commission as well. The implication of these factors is that the average loss per trade will always be larger than the average profit. This is a structural (i.e. inherent) characteristic of the binary option game. Thus, in order to break even, a binary option trader would have to win at least 55% of the time. Compare this to spot Forex trading, where a trader can be profitable by winning just 40% (or less) of the time. MY PERSONAL OPINION On paper, binary options are an opportunity seeker’s wet dream. The promise of regular fixed payouts and a focus on short-term profits are exactly the characteristics that appeal to people looking for a quick buck. Unfortunately for them, what feels good in trading is typically a losing approach. You see... the only way to keep making money with binary options is to accurately predict market prices at least 55% of the time, AND get the timing right. This is an exceptionally difficult feat to accomplish. In other words, you can correctly predict future market prices AND STILL LOSE because you got the timing wrong by a few minutes. HOWEVER All this said, there may be a genuine opportunity here… and that is to be a seller of binary options. Why? Because it’s a lot easier to estimate where prices will 'not go', rather than trying to predict where it will. Whenever the market settles at a particular price level, it is not settling at a dozen other price levels. Does this make sense? This root concept may then be expanded to form a complete binary option trading strategy that you can use. Note however, that this is a benefit available to all types of options, not just binary options. SO, ARE BINARY OPTIONS JUST A FAD? One reservation I have about binary options is that they do not serve a major commercial purpose. Unlike the spot and derivatives markets that serve to benefit society, binary options exist solely for speculation purposes. In other words, it can be reasonably argued that binary option trading is not much different than a casino game. Without a commercial purpose, binary options could be banned tomorrow and not impact anyone else other than the brokers and speculators. Compare this to spot Forex trading, or Forex futures trading, upon which global commerce relies. These markets are unlikely to be closed or banned, because they serve a useful purpose beyond speculation. As a retail trader for the past 10 years, I’ve seen all sorts of gimmicks and fads come and go. Some years ago, expert advisors were the hot topic. Slowly but surely, people are now gradually realizing that "automated trading" isn't as amazing as it's cracked up to be. Will binary options follow suit? My opinion is yes, I think they will. Binary options do not provide any major benefit to serious traders, and I think that once the opportunity seekers get bored or lose enough money, they’ll lose interest and turn their attention to the next shiny object. WHAT DO YOU THINK? So... do you particularly agree or disagree with any of the points I’ve mentioned? Did I miss mentioning any important points? Let me know what you think! The original article is published here
The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 3b - Pricing and liquidity
*Introductions: I'm joskye. A cryptocurrency investor and holder. * ...
Hi again. This is the third part in our ongoing series on how to trade better and determine intelligent investments in cryptocurrency for the future.
In part 1 I talked about the importance of selling enough to make back your principle investment i.e. if you buy something at $300 and it rises to $600 in value, sell $300 to eliminate all future risk of personal loss e.g. if that asset falls to $150 in value after (which can happen easily since suchvolatility is very common in cryptocurrency). In cryptocurrency trading/investments a 100% return of investment should always prompt you to consider selling 1/2 your stack.
In part 2 I talked about the psychology behind fear of missing out; i.e. the dangers of buying during a sudden rise in an asset's price and how to make the most of such rallies whilst minimising the risks involved in joining them.
In part 3a I discussed The importance of a value proposition and the absolute need for any cryptocurrency you invest in to already generate or have the potential to generate revenue in a manner completely independent of it's speculative value as dictated by daily market prices.
Part 3b continues where I left off with a discussion about price metrics specifically, what determines the price and the importance of liquidity: ...
The day traders:
As I mentioned in my previous article, as of writing almost every cryptocurrency is determined purely by speculative value.
Thus the absolute price of a given cryptocurrency is determined solely by the day traders and specifically the last price it was agreed that currency would be sold at with confirmation of that price by a buyer who bought it.
People say lots of things determine the price; marketcap, liquidity, value proposition, revenues generated by the coin, the number of said coin in circulation but ultimately it comes down to the number of buyers and number of sellers competing for that coin.
Perhaps the other thing is the size of said market relative to the money held by the players in it.
For instance in cryptocurrency Bitcoin is still the biggest player in the game. It carries a per unit price of $900 per coin. There are currently 16,090,137 (16 million) coins in circulation giving it a total marketcap value of [$900 x 16090137 =] $14481123300 or 14.48 billion USD.
This is 85% of the current cryptocurrency marketcap. (The total marketcap of all cryptocurrencies as of writing is 17.17 billion USD.)
Compare and contrast Shadowcash (SDC) which has a unit price of $1.27 with 6,616814 coins in circulation giving it a total marketcap value of [$1.27 x 6616814=] $8392766 or 8.39 million USD.
Thus Shadowcash in comparison to Bitcoin is a tiny cap of the cryptocurrency sphere. Shadowcash has a total value that is only 0.06% of Bitcoin when comparing marketcap's.
Shadowcash looks even more meagre compared to the total cryptocurrency marketcap with only 0.048% of the total cryptocurrency sphere. To any Shadowcash holders despairing at this point, relax. There are over 707 cryptocurrencies trading as of writing and SDC holds the 27th ranking in terms of market cap. In such a competitive field, filled with scams that's pretty good. Moreso when you consider that SDC is a legitimate technology and is currently probably very undervalued. ...
Lets look at the rich list for bitcoin:
The top holder has 124,956 Bitcoin valued at $1,12460400 or 1.24 billion USD.
The top SDC holder has 1027261 SDC valued at $1,304621 or 1.4 million USD.
Thus the wealth of the top SDC holder is 1.16% that of the wealth of the top Bitcoin holder.
Why did I just talk about this?
Well they say that a big fish can easily occupy, make a splash in and empty a small pond just by diving in.
In cryptocurrency I see this happening on the markets all the time. Indeed market manipulation effects every single cryptocurrency eventually. ...
Large holders of valuable, high marketcap coins will often make multiple small volume purchases of less valuable, low marketcap coins. Often this will follow announcements regarding developments in that low marketcap coin.
An example of low volume ordering is buying 1 SDC at $1.20, 0.5 SDC at $1.2001, 5 SDC at $1.2010, 3 SDC at $1.21, 10 SDC at $1.22 and 0.11 SDC at $1.24, but then leaving someone else to fill the order for 100 SDC priced at $1.242.
Thus by spending $23.77, in low volume purchases the buyer can raise the market cap of SDC from ($1.20 * 6,616814 coins) $7.94 million to (1.24 * 6,616814) $8.20 million! (4.2% increase).
Low volume buying in a market with low daily trading volume can gradually drive up the price attracting an influx of buyers into that coin; often they will make larger volume purchases of it which helps drive up the price much further. This will trigger a further chain of buyers experiencing FOMO (fear of missing out, detailed in Part 2) who will drive up the price even further. The price will pump. Often will smaller cap cryptocurrencies this may result in a sudden 20, 40, 60 or even +100% increase in value often over a very short time space (1-2 days, 1-2 weeks maximum).
Often the original purchaser who triggered these events will have accumulated a lot of said cryptocurrency cheaply prior to or during the early stages of the pump and will wind up selling the majority of his/her's purchases when the price reaches a peak; usually when the daily/hourly trading volume on that coin starts to decline but sufficient buyers are still available.
This results in a sudden or often more gradual dump in the coins value, usually by falling by 75% or more of the rise.
The only way to discern if the sudden rise in coin value is due to pre-rigged market manipulation is to look at:
the value proposition of that coin (discussed extensively in part 3a of this guide)
the order book
the depth chart
the pattern of change on daily trading volume (and liquidity)
You are looking for organic, gradual growth based on a solid value proposition. Sudden large spikes in value should make you pause and wonder if it's worth waiting for a gradual correction (organic drop) in price before entering your buy order.
Do not fall for a pump and dump. Stick to the lessons covered in previous parts of this guide (especially part 3a and 2) and you will be much less likely to lose money in the long run trading and investing in cryptocurrencies. ...
The pattern of change on daily trading volume, the order book and liquidity:
Lets look at SDC and Bitcoin again. This time we are going to compare the daily trading volume (last 24 hours) in USD.
In the last 24 hours (dated 8th Jan 2016), SDC traded a total volume of $26,033. This is 0.01% of all USD daily trading volume on exchanges and only 0.39% of the total marketcap of SDC.
In contrast Bitcoin traded $163,306,776 ($0.16 Billion) over the same 24 hour period. This is 76.15% of USD daily trading volume on exchanges and only 1.12% of it's total marketcap.
I'd just like to use this opportunity to point out and reinforce the idea that day traders not holders dictate the daily price of an asset. I'd also like to point out daily global trading volume on Forex is $4800 billion which makes Bitcoin a very small fish in the broader arena of global finance and trade i.e. Bitcoin is still very vulnerable to all the price manipulation tactics and liquidity issues I am going to be describing in this article by bigger players with richer pockets.
The numbers means that just because the marketcap of Bitcoin is $14 billion, that does not mean that there is truly $14 billion worth of fiat currencies (USD, Yuan, Euro etc) in Bitcoin; the total fiat volume is merely an estimate based on current price and number of Bitcoin in circulation.
The daily trading volume also gives you an idea of how much fiat currency you can invest into a given cryptocurrency before you suddenly shift the price.
For example based on the 24 hour daily trading volume for SDC I know that if I blindly spent $15,000 (57% of the daily trading volume) buying SDC without any regard to the price, I can be confident that I will likely cause the price of SDC to go up significantly.
In contrast spending $15,000 to buy Bitcoin (0.0092% of the daily trading volume) without regards to it's price, I can be confident that it will not likely cause a significant rise in the daily spot price of Bitcoin.
A sudden rise in coin price heavily out of proportion to the rise in daily trading volume should be the first sign to alert you to a pump & dump scam.
It implies a low volume trading at low prices to trick the unseasoned trader to perpetuate higher volume, high price buys.
If daily trading volume cannot organically increase to sustain the price, it will eventually fall when the original pumper (or group of pumpers) sell to take their profits.
Daily trading volume should show a steady increase over time with sustained buy support at new price levels; this is a good marker of organic, sustainable growth.
This does not always have to be the case! Sufficiently large price movements (several 1000%) can significantly raise the next absolute low in price for the mid-term (months) even if that is several 100% lower than the peak!
Conversely declining trading volumes indicate loss of interest in the coin and a price that is potentially more prone to and at risk of price manipulation with smaller amounts of fiat/bitcoin (than if higher daily trading volumes existed).
Finally the fact that daily fiat trading volume for Bitcoin and Shadowcash is such a small percentage of it's total marketcap reinforces the idea that price is set by day traders not by holders!
For more detail you can now look at the depth chart:
The depth chart is very useful to know how much fiat currency is required to cause the spot price of a given cryptocurrency to rise or fall by a given amount.
The depth chart groups different bids (buy orders) and asks (sell orders) by price and volume e.g. 17.739 bitcoin worth of SDC are currently on sale at poloniex for 0.00117500 bitcoin each ($1.07 per coin) and 0.149 Bitcoin are on sale at the current spot price of 0.00135750 Bitcoin ($1.24)
So as of writing, I can see (from the charts) to raise the price of SDC from 0.00135750 Bitcoin ($1.24) to 0.00181381 Bitcoin ($1.66) I would need to spend 26 Bitcoin ($23783).
NB the price of most cryptocurrencies is expressed in Bitcoin because it has the largest market cap and daily trading volume of all cryptocurrencies by a very large margin and because with a few exceptions (Ethereum, Monero) most cryptocurrencies do not have routes to directly purchase via fiat currency without first purchasing Bitcoin.
The depth chart shows me how many coins I can buy without significantly increasing the price and how many coins I can sell within a given price range.It gives me an idea of the liquidity and volatility of the market i.e. if I buy SDC right now and need to sell it later today or tomorrow for fiat, what is the realistic probability I can get my entire amount in fiat returned to me in the amount originally spent.
Liquidity is super important. People often complain about a market lacking liquidity but that is often because they are trading in fiat volumes which far exceed the daily trading fiat volumes of the cryptocurrency they are referring to. If you are investing or trading in a cryptocurrency, always factor in the your personal liquidity and need for liquidity relative to that of the cryptocurrency you are investing in. In other words don't expect to make a profit next day selling 'cryptocurrency x' if the size your single buy order composes >90% of the buy orders on the market for 'cryptocurrency x' that day (indeed in such a scenario be very prepared to sell at a loss next day if you absolutely have to)!
The depth chart also gives me an idea of where significant supports exists (price zones with large buy orders relative to the depth chart) to determine the true base price (in conjunction with daily trading volume) and where significant resistances exist (price zones with large sell orders relative to the rest of the depth chart) to determine what the majority of sellers think the coin is truly worth. Be wary though as buy walls (large supports) and sell walls (large resistances) can be moved at any time.
There are certain patterns on a depth chart that make me believe a significant, sustained price rise is imminent: One example occurs when there is a very large volume of buy orders (>25% of total buy volume within 5% of current price) very close to the current (spot) price, and a very large number of sell orders close to but significantly above the spot price (approx 25% total sell volume within 10% of current price) and especially if the total buy order volume is a significantly higher percentage than it has previously been. This simply indicates high demand at current price which may soon outstrip supply. Again I stress that these patterns can be manipulated easily by wealthy traders.
It is up to you to study the depth charts and discern the patterns. You will learn more about day trading this way.
The order book is another way of looking at the depth chart and allows you to see the specific transactions occurring that compose daily trading volume by the second!
I find it useful because it allows me to identify:
If there is a string of low volume orders that can be filled to pump the price (or conversely a string of low volume sell orders to dump it). This can play on the psychology of the entire market as many people aren't simply aware of how the manipulations occur; most people simply look at the price!
Where resistances to price change occur and how much money it will take to break them (i.e. if I am day trading to make a profit via pumping, is it worth me spending X to clear a sell wall to encourage others to buy and push up the price further or do I need to spend so much of my capital that should I fail to stimulate buy orders, I become vulnerable to a dump in coin price with effective subsequent loss of fiat money).
The presence of automated trading bots rapidly cycling a buy or sell order of fixed volume between a series of prices that dynamically adjust with the overall trend in price movements. Bots can be your best friend (to pumping or dumping price) if you know how to manipulate them!
The price charts:
Discussions about price charts could be endless. I'm not going to go into too much detail, mostly because I'm an investor who believes the value proposition, good consistent development, decent marketing and communications will ultimately trump spot prices and adverse (or positive) short term price trends in the future.
I'm also going to skim this because I'm not as versed in this subject as I'd like to be.
I personally use the candle bar charts on Poloniex to look at 15 minute and daily candles on the hourly, daily, weekly and monthly charts.
I combine this with charts on Bittrex which can calculate the RSI (to estimate if a coin is overbought or oversold) and Bollinger Bands (again to help estimate if a coin is overbought or oversold).
I usually look at the overall direction of trading over a period of several days, compare it to the direction and trends over the last month. I then try to interpret it in the context of the daily trading volume and depth charts.
I often get my predictions on short term price movement wrong if I only look at candle charts without factoring in depth charts, order book and daily trading volume patterns! I have a lot more learning to do on technical analysis.
The charts do often reveal mid/long term supports and resistances in price!
Investopedia is a good place to start learning about different mathematical techniques to analyse charts (including any terms used in these articles).
I'm a big fan of u/kustonoy who inhabits the Ethtrader sub. I personally feel his analysis of the short term markets are generally pretty good. You should never be too lazy to not do your own regular market analysisespecially if trading short term, but if you want a good reference point, I suggest following him.
The news cycle:
I've mentioned this lower down the list because for intra-day and day traders and even to some extent investors, the news cycle matters very little unless it directly affects the value proposition in some way.
If a news event does result in real maturation of the proposed value proposition (such that the technology has confirmed a new sustained user base or revenue stream) then it might justify a sustained rise in price regardless of the volatility achieved reaching and following the peak.
Some assets may have nothing but an endless stream of good news which meets the above criteria yet it's valuation fails to increase. This is likely a sign that a larger player is deliberately manipulating the market to accumulate more of that asset to sell very high later (I believe Ethereum has fallen victim to this recently) or that it is occuring during long period of consolidation is where diversification of asset ownership is happening which means a new price floor is being set for much larger increases later on. The lowest most frequently occurring point which the price repeatedly bounces off of (stops falling below) is the new floor.
Other interesting points: The 'coin x' scenario and the ridiculousness of marketcap:
'Coin X' is an imaginary hypothetical coin. There are only 10 in circulation. It has no value proposition beyond it's speculative value i.e. it will never generate a revenue independent of it's speculative value.
If 'coin x' had only 10 in circulation, was indivisible and each coin had a value of $3 billion, the market cap of 'coin x' would surpass Bitcoin!
If all 10 coins were not on sale then 'coin x' would have a value of zero.
If 9 people had bought 'coin x' at $1 and the 10th person bought it at $3 billion, it's marketcap would still be $30 billion. This does not mean there is $30 billion of fiat stored in coin X.
If an 11th buyer came along and bought 'coin x' at $1.20 the price of coin X would fall to $1.20 and the marketcap of 'coin x' would be $12.0.
This still does not mean there is $12 of fiat stored in coin x.
This does not mean everyone can sell 'coin x' at $1.20.
A new buyer blind to the purely speculative nature of 'coin x' looking at the trend charts could try to argue it is now extremely undervalued and a great buy or possibly was a grand scam and untouchable.
Either way the next price at which 'coin x' is bought/sold is purely arbitrary and determined by the patience of the seller and the impatience of the buyer.
[Edit]: I could also issue 10 more of 'coin x' and if it's unit price remained $1.20 the market cap would instantly double from $12 to $24!
I'd like to point out the similarities between ZCash and 'coin x' (especially during it's launch). ...
Marketcap is derived from the price, not the other way around. Until a cryptocurrency generates significant revenue independent of it's speculative valuation this will remain the case.
Price is determined by the day traders, not by the holders.
The spot price of any given cryptocurrency is determined by the patience of the seller and the impatience of the buyer.
Price of most cryptocurrencies is derived from bitcoin unless they have a direct fiat gateway. Unless a significant amount of trading volume occurs via the fiat gateway, the price of that cryptocurrency is still heavily dependent on the price of bitcoin.
Bitcoin is (for now) is the gold standard of cryptocurrencies. Because it has the largest marketcap (by a very massive margin).
Market manipulation means that large holders in more valuable currencies (large marketcaps) can tamper with and set the value of much smaller currencies (i.e. smaller marketcaps).
Bitcoin's price itself can be manipulated by investment banks, governments or firms who trade in multi billions of USD daily. This is because the daily trading volume is almost 5 trillion trillion USD (which is several thousand times larger
There is nothing wrong with investing or trading in cryptocurrencies with low daily trading volumes and marketcaps, just be concious not to put more money into them than their long term buy support can handle and only invest what you can afford to lose.
The concept of liquidity in a market is important relative to the amount of fiat you are planning to invest or trade in it.
Whether day trading or investing, pick cryptocurrencies with good fundamentals i.e. excellent development teams, good marketing and strong value propositions that will provide the cryptocurrency in question use and value independent of speculative valuations.You are less likely to get manipulated or scammed in the long run that way especially if you are a holder.
Be very weary of trading or investing small amounts of money in larger markets that allow leveraged trading. Those markets will behave irrationally and not follow the fundamentals in the short term.
It is up to you to study the depth charts, order books, candle bar charts, daily trading volumes and news cycle to discern the patterns. The price is a composite of this and the psychology of people who don't understand this. You will learn more about day trading this way and more importantly learn to trade/invest independent of the price.
Coin market capitalisations and data including rich lists derived from:
Full disclosure/Disclaimer: At time of original writing I had long positions in Ethereum (ETH), Shadowcash (SDC), Iconomi (ICN), Augur (REP) and Digix (DGD). All the opinions expressed are my own. I cannot guarantee gains; losses are sustainable; do your own financial research and make your decisions responsibly. All prices and values given are as of time of first writing (Midday 8th-Jan-2017).
Second disclaimer: Please do not buy Shadowcash (SDC), the project has been abandoned by it's developers who have moved on to the Particl Project (PART). The PARTICL crowd fund and SDC 1:1 token swap completed April 15th. You can still exchange SDC for PART but only if it was acquired prior to 15th April 2017 see: https://particl.news/a-community-driven-initiative-e26724100c3a for more information.
Addendum: Article updated 23-11-2017 to edit references to SDC (changed to Particl where relevant to reflect updated status) and clean up formatting.
LIQNET A CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE WITH THE UNIQUE LIQUIDITY POOLING TECHNOLOGY LIQNET SPECIFICS THE LEN MECHANISM (LIQUIDITY EXCHANGE NETWORK) LEN (Liquidity Exchange Network) is what makes our exchange unique. This mechanism allows collecting and aggregating buy/sell orders through APIs of 1,2...n exchanges located anywhere in the world and forming a unified order book.LIQNET is a cryptocurrency exchange that uses a unique liquidity gathering mechanism. Find out how it works today in our review.What Is LIQNET? LIQNET, found online at LIQNET.com, gathers liquidity from other exchanges and allows traders to access this liquidity through a single dashboard. You can take advantage of arbitrage opportunities between exchanges. Or, you can simply use LIQNET to access more liquidity. The system revolves around the united limit order book, or LOB. You access this order book through the professional LIQNET interface. LIQNET was announced on April 24, 2018. The company is expecting to launch a token sale in May or June 2018. How Does LIQNET Work? LIQNET revolves around its limit order book, or LOB, and its LEN mechanism. The Liquidity Exchange Network, or LEN, mechanism prevents liquidity fragmentation by pooling bids and orders from different exchanges. Instead of accessing liquidity from a single cryptocurrency exchange, you can access liquidity from multiple exchanges using the same professional LIQNET dashboard. The main benefit of this higher liquidity is that traders can enjoy a lower bid/ask spread. LEN collects and pools orders from exchange customers like you. Then, it connects those orders with orders from other platforms, creating a single depth of market panel. Orders are collected and then made available for trading to all LIQNET exchange customers. Using the public APIs of cryptocurrency exchanges, LEN polls them for purchase and sale bids, forming a single depth of market panel for its customers and allowing traders to find the best prices at minimal spread. You can access LIQNET through your desktop browser or a mobile app. LIQNET Features & Benefits LIQNET emphasizes all of the following features and benefits: No Slippage: High liquidity allows users to reduce or fully eliminate the costs of slippage. Expenses Reduction: The higher the market liquidity is, the smaller the bid/ask spread will be, which thereby lowers the cost of trading. Trust: LIQNET’s liquidity “reflects the presence of a mass of people whose actions are much easier to predict than the actions of a single person,” explains the official website, which means that a single entity can’t dominate the trading market. Decentralization: LIQNET claims to be built on a decentralized system because their physical hardware is located in two different data centers, including centers in France and Canada. This isn’t what we typically mean by “decentralization”, although we understand what LIQNET is getting at. Security: LIQNET holds customers’ funds in multiple locations, including hot wallets, multi-signature wallets, and cryptocurrency exchanges. This reduces the risk of theft. Multiple Trading Options: LIQNET supports direct trading from the financial chart and scalping trades (including post limit and stop orders right from the order book). Multiple Order Types: LIQNET supports stop order trades, stop limit trades, TP & SL trades, trailing stop trades, Iceberg, IFD, OCO, IFDOCO, valid till day/time trades, AON, IOC, and FOK trades. Financial Charts: LIQNET provides a suite of analysis tools. Users can also customize their dashboard with 100+ different trading indicators. Multiple Currency Pairs: Right now, LIQNET lists just four cryptocurrency pairs, including LTC/BTC, ETH/BTC, BCH/BTC, and PPC/BTC. However, they allow users to deposit more currencies, including bitcoin, Litecoin, USD, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, DASH, and Peercoin (PPC). LIQNET Fees A number of cryptocurrency exchanges aggregate liquidity from across different exchanges. So what makes LIQNET special? What kind of fees can you expect to pay? Here are some of the notable fees as listed on the LIQNET fees page: Trading Fees: 0.2% taker fee, 0.1% maker fee Deposit Fees: 0 (0% deposit fees on all deposit options, including bitcoin, Litecoin, USD, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, DASH, and Peercoin). Withdrawal Fees: 0.0001 BTC, 0.01 LTC, 0.01 USD, 0.01 ETH, 0.01 BCH, 0.01 DASH, and 0.01 PPC. The LIQNET ICO LIQNET is expecting to launch a crowdsale in May / June 2018. That crowdsale will consist of a closed pre-sale and an open ICO. Further details of the token sale have not yet been announced. LIQNET has partnered with Como Capital to launch their ICO. It’s unclear how LIQNET tokens will work. However, tokens launched by other cryptocurrency exchanges typically provide a discount on trading fees. You might only pay 0.1% or 0.5% trading fees when paying with LIQNET’s tokens, for example.Who’s Behind LIQNET? LIQNET was created by a team of finance, law, and technology professionals with a proven track record in traditional investments and forex trading. Key members of the team include Roman Shirokov (CEO), Evgeny Tarasenko (CTO), and Vyacheslav Kasatkin. LIQNET was incorporated in 2015. The company is registered to an address in Singapore (10 Maxwell Road, Singapore). LIQNET Conclusion LIQNET is a cryptocurrency exchange that aggregates liquidity from a number of different exchanges across the internet. The goal is to reduce the bid/ask spread while offering users the highest liquidity across multiple order types and markets. Right now, LIQNET is in the early stages of launch. The exchange is not yet available online, although a desktop and mobile app are preparing to launch in the near future.
If you have $500-$1000 to jump in with, I'd suggest buying some site so that you throw yourself into the deep end. Start looking through sites at Flippa.com. Since they are established websites for sale, they will be disclosing EVERYTHING. Earnings, traffic, how they get the traffic, etc. These are great examples to get you in the mindset of a web entrepreneur.
Not true at all. I actually sold off my inventory of 40+ sites because I'm literally too busy with other projects. The people who bought my websites are now enjoying the cash-flow that I used to have.
Also, there's pretty much no such thing as a "Set/Forget" website that makes you money. Everything needs some level of maintenance, and every site has the potential to stop making money overnight if google changes it's logarithm.
No, I actually studied Construction Management in college. - Best paying is like forex, mortgages, foreclosures, mesothilioma (sp?) etc. Worst are education, kids stuff, etc. But it doesn't matter what the niche is, you can still make money in any. And the higher-paying niches have MUCH more competition. - I get over a million visits a month. - SEO, Social Media, no PPC. The sites I buy, I do no marketing since they are already getting traffic. - My main site has been around 6 years. I probably put 10-30 hours a week into it. - Not interested in partnerships. I've got a few employees but don't need anymore.
Forums are better to get more user generated content. It's usually lower quality, but you get it for free. Forums are also typically harder to monetize because forum browsers know not to click on the adsense units.
Blogs can be tough because you have to do ALL the writing, however you can have higher quality content and probably more clicks since blog readers aren't quite as internet savvy as the interactive forum users.
I prefer Wordpress for sites where I'm writing the content. - You can use any host. If you aren't a high traffic site, then anything will do. - It really depends how you spend your time. - Forums are easy to set up, and once you have a userbase established, they typically grow over time. You don't have to do all the content for forums as well.
I don't read any books. Too short of an attention span. When you contact potential affiliates, make sure that you are offering them value and have a customized email. I get emails for affiliate programs all the time and just ignore them because they are either recycled letters or don't fit my site at all.
Definitely, especially if you can do it better than the other sites. There are 10 google positions on the first page, so even if you have competition, you can still nudge your way in. Also, there are billions of search terms that people use to find different stuff...
If you bought a quality site for $3000, you could probably be looking at a starting cash flow of ~$100 a month. You could probably increase it, but there are too many variables so it really depends on what you buy.
You handle risk and pressure well, and you don't let your emotions guide your decision-making. Professional Poker and TCG players often develop this skillset.
You have experience working with stocks, bonds, derivatives, foreign exchange, or other financial instruments. If you have a strong mathematical background, that would also likely fulfill this.
You can invest significant capital into trading while remaining financially secure if it all suddenly vanishes.
You are capable of constantly monitoring a situation, waking up in the middle of the night if an alarm goes off, etc. It requires serious dedication.
You are good at keeping up with news, understanding market psychology, and "feeling" shifts in attitude and perception among other market participants.
Of those, I'd be most cautious if you don't meet no. 3. Going bust is a real possibility--day-trading a volatile commodity is inherently extremely high-risk. Nos. 2 and 4 are the easiest to learn or force through routine. No. 1 requires a person who approaches things in an emotionally detached manner. No. 5 is something that comes with investing enough time.
Second question: I'm answering this after that big block of text because this answer will come off like a get-rich-quick scheme. Yes, you can hop into it very quickly, and you can start making very high profits very quickly. I put in a small initial investment to test the waters, and made 10% on it in a few days. If you have the right skillset, composure, and resources, yes. It is a potentially very lucrative and exciting stay-at-home job. It is not for everyone, though.
Regardless, that's all a little irrelevant. We're not playing the house, and we're not flipping coins. We're playing other investors, and we're making actual decisions. You keep saying things like "98% lose money" and "Go onto any FOREX forum, and you will see from the users posts that they pretty much all lose money" but you don't back it up. Cool, yeah, it's a zero-sum game with a rake: a little more than half of the players will lose. That's expected. They'll probably complain about it, too, huh?
I only have and need one: I have chosen not to disclose my personal valuation for privacy reasons. Same reason I've had all along. I instead publicly disclose my trades, as they happen, on my website. The posts are timestamped, and the ones that are the start of a position contain the price I entered at. Go check the posts, then go check the charts, then go check my archive. But feel free to continue to arbitrarily call my credibility into question--that makes your argument better!
First, our argument so far has had nothing to do with risk. Second, I told you I am leveraged 2.5:1, two posts ago. Third, you realize I'm trading Bitcoin, not ForEx, correct? And that no one in their right mind would offer 100:1 leverage on Bitcoin due to its volatility?
A year ago I was finishing up college and extricating myself from the TCG business I'd co-founded. I took very little in take-home pay over that period, but kept part ownership of the continuing business. Money isn't just about the number on your bank account--it's also about residual future income.
Coins that offer something different or that have a strong community to them can be valuable prospects.
LTC is the first-mover scrypt coin - DOGE has the most non-techies interested in its success and is spreading quickly as a result - NXT is a cool generation two coin that has a lot of features BTC doesn't have - VTC is ASIC-resistant
Nope. That's a false equivalence. It is possible that 4.95% of the market loses. It is not feasible, that, say, 99% of people with blue eyes lose. What, exactly, in empirical terms, is the difference between retail investors and hedge/institutions that causes this INCREDIBLE disparity? Would you care to respond to my above empirical argument that demonstrates that a zero-decision system is flipping a losing coin? Do you consider it feasible for 99% of people playing a 45-55 game to lose?
Not really yet, but there will be more prominent ones soon. I hear about a new one pretty regularly, it seems, but nothing that seems truly legitimate has come out. I'm certainly excited for them, though.
Eventually, once Mr. Lawsky and co. get things sorted out, I'm certain we'll see a big-name investment bank start offering them.
I think Mage needs basic, class-level tuning. I'm not sure what needs to be done exactly, but I don't like what the Mage class power does to gameplay. I've thought some about how different it would be if it could only hit minions, and I'd want to know if Blizzard had tried that out. The Mage power is too versatile, and over the long-term I think it will prove to be problematic.
I'm currently short, but I don't expect to be so for a lot longer. I don't think we'll get past 550. I also don't expect this drop to hold on for a really long time.
I haven't seen a good, substantive rationale for what the MtGox situation really has to do with Bitcoin price. Yes, it looks bad, it certainly doesn't help with our legitimacy, but is it really worth the incredible price declines we continue to see? I don't think so. I think we are seeing these impressive declines because the price on MtGox (which is a reflection of trust in MtGox relative to Bitcoin price, not just Bitcoin price) has been declining heavily. I don't expect it to continue forever, especially not with things like the Winkdex and the accompanying ETF launching.
MtGox is basically dead to me, for now at least. The sooner everyone stops paying attention to it, the sooner we can all get back on track, which I, for one, will be quite happy about.
It can be. I don't want the developers metaphorically over my shoulder outlawing strategies, but I don't mind if the strategies that are "less fun" for your opponent (Draw/Go, Mill, or Hard Combo from MTG, for example) are also less powerful. Most players prefer a game where the best decks are also among the most fun, because it means that they are playing against fun decks more often. Clearly the 2-cost 3/3 will be played most often. If you fix this by making both 2-cost guys 2/2s or 3/3s, or by making one a 2/3 and the other a 3/2, then you've done something--but it's not that interesting. If you instead make the 2-cost 2/2 have text that says "While you control the 3-cost 3/3, this gets +2/+2" and you give the 3 cost 3/3 text that says "While you control the 2-cost 2/2, it has Taunt" you now have more complex cards that reward players for doing something other than just playing the best stand-alone card.
This is obviously a very simplistic example, but I hope it makes the point. Games are more fun when you give players more relevant choices: buffing and nerfing cards tends not to do that as well as promoting synergies does.
You might need to rephrase your question for me to understand what you're asking. If you're asking why a Bitcoin has value, the answer is the same as any other good: because someone is willing to pay it.
If you're asking why someone is willing to pay that amount, my answer would be utility.
If I'm not going to be able to check my computer for a day or two, or I'm uncertain of what's going to happen the next few days, I do use the liquidity swap function. It's actually very profitable, relative to traditional investments. And you're right, it is low-risk. I'm a fan. Good job selecting it if you were intimidated--that's a good place to start. As far as actually starting trading, do science. Start with a hypothesis. If you were up at 5 AM today when MtGox published their announcement, a good hypothesis might have been something like: "This announcement is going to be a blow to their credibility, and might panic the markets. We'll probably drop by some amount as a result." Invest based on it, figure out around what price you want to take profits, and at what price you'll cut your losses and get out. Stick to those determinations unless something substantive changes. The time you tell yourself you can afford to not close your position because it will "rebound" back to where you want is also the time you lose your shirt.
Bitcoin isn't anonymous. That's actually a common misconception. It's actually pseudonymous, like Reddit. You end up with an online identity--a wallet address--that you use with Bitcoin.
If I walk up to you on a street corner and buy Bitcoin with cash, then I'm pretty much anonymous. If I buy it from a large institution like Coinbase or some other company, they will have records of the address my Bitcoin was bought for. As a result, you can trace them down, generally speaking.
The biggest hurdle for Bitcoin to overcome is governments. Governments have a variety of reasons not to want an alternative currency. We seem to have done pretty well on that front here in the US, but for other countries (China) that is not the case. Past that, the other major hurdle is something I consider an inevitability: consumer adoption. Business adoption has begun in earnest, consumer adoption hasn't. It will when enough businesses take Bitcoin to give it sufficient utility for the average customer.
I currently have no other holdings, but I've held DOGE and LTC at points and am considering VTC and NXT. DOGE is probably my favorite, because if the community can keep this up for a little longer it will snowball into amaze.
I do use relatively strict stop losses, but they're not stop loss orders. My conditions usually aren't just the price hitting a certain point, but instead it sustaining for a brief period, or hitting it with a certain volume, or with a certain amount of resistance to retreat. I don't want my stop loss to be triggered by some idiot who dumps 300 BTC and temporarily drops the price 15, but only ends up really dropping it 3. I am very strict with myself about this, though, generally speaking--if I can't trust promises I make to myself, what good am I?
100% of funds in every trade, so long as all funds are easily moved into the position. Common exceptions are lack of liquidity and funds being on other exchanges. My reasoning for being all-in all-the-time is that it's a profit-maximizing move. It is also risk-maximizing. My risk tolerance is infinite; most people's isn't. Only ever one. Generally BTC if I'm long, dollar if I'm short. I prefer to double-dip, as otherwise it would be in contradiction to the 100% plan. I use everything I have for trading. Again, profit-maximization, infinite risk tolerance.
I decide a closing price when I'm near either my stop loss or my profit aim. I place a limit order or multiple limit orders wherever I need to. I avoid market orders whenever possible. Enough is when I hit my goals or my loss tolerance. I decide these at the start, but I frequently re-evaluate them as news and market conditions develop.
I would suggest just running around shouting "You get to be your own bank" is probably the best way.
In all seriousness, though--we don't need to try. It's going to happen on its own from now on, as the news media slowly starts to pick up the story. People will start appearing on TV talking about it with more and more frequency. Things like the Dogelympic teams are great PR and help boost it up, as well, of course, but in general it's just going to follow the adoption curve of every other technology.
If it picks up in a few developing nations that have stable internet, it will be a massive revolution for them. Self-banking can do a huge amount of good for an economy like theirs. We might see reports on that. If a major newspaper decides to run a permanent paywall like what the Sun-Times tested recently, that could be big as well. The slow PR from tipping on Reddit is another way, to be honest. Every bit helps, but the cryptocurrency community is now large enough that we're going to do a significant amount of organic, word-of-mouth style growth.
Having a currency be tracked has negatives and positives, but it's overwhelmingly positive for the average consumer. Because it's tracked, you don't need to pay someone to move your money for you. There also are no chargebacks, which means merchants aren't getting scammed and passing those costs onto consumers. Theft costs everyone money. It's also very fast--transactions confirm in just 10 minutes, regardless of size or where it's going. Transferring dollars from here to China is very difficult--transferring Bitcoin? Just as easy as from anywhere else to anywhere.
MtGox (which originally stood for Magic the Gathering Online eXchange) was the first prominent Bitcoin exchange. They've been going through some rather rough times lately, some of which I was an early cataloguer of here. In short, everyone is freaking out because the exchange may be insolvent. It's not really a big deal to Bitcoin as a whole, but it's certainly an obvious blow to credibility. In my view, people are primarily upset because MtGox has been a part of Bitcoin for a very long time, and it can be hard to let go of what we're used to. I expect that they will either fix the issues or will go out of business officially very soon.
Unless my positions are on different exchanges or in different coins, they're all always 100% of what I'll put into that trade at entrance and exit. As a result, I end up with a binary choice: stay or reduce/close. I very rarely reduce position size, nearly always preferring to just end the position instead.
Last updated: 2014-02-25 04:57 UTC This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
The spread is the difference between the bid and ask price. This is a really important factor to consider when trading. You can use the analogy of buying a car. Every expert will tell you the minute you pull off the lot you lose thousands of dollars in resale value. Even though it’s the same car you bought a month ago with only 500 miles on the odometer, to buyers it’s not worth as much as ... Spread is the difference between these two prices. In other words, it is a commission you pay to your broker for every transaction. SPREAD = ASK – BID. For example, the EUR/USD Bid/Ask currency rates are 1.1250/1.1251. You will buy the pair at the higher Ask price of 1.1251 and sell it at the lower Bid price of 1.1250. This represents a ... In this example, buyers are willing to pay $20.80 (BID) for this stock, but sellers want at least $21.50 (ASK). The difference between the bid and ask price is called “the spread,” and in this example, the spread is $0.60. In the previous example with Apple stock, the “bid/ask spread” was only $0.04. The difference between the bid and ask prices is referred to as the bid-ask spread. The bid-ask spread benefits the market maker and represents the market maker’s profit. It is an important factor to take into consideration when trading securities, as it is essentially a hidden cost that is incurred during trading. For example, if a security received a bid of $10 and an ask of $11, an ... Bid-Ask Spread. A full quotation is made up of 2 prices called the Bid and the Ask. The difference between these two prices is referred to as the 'spread'. The spread is essentially the profit a broker or bank makes for you to enter the trade (your transactional cost). The wider the spread the more expensive it is for you to trade, whereas the ... Like any financial market the Forex market has a bid ask spread. This is simply the difference between the price at which a currency pair can be bought and sold. This is what accounts for the negative number in the “profit” column as soon as you place a trade. Before we go any further let’s define the two terms, “bid price” and “ask ... The Forex bid & ask spread represents the difference between the purchase and the sale rates. This signifies the expected profit of the online Forex Trading transaction. The value of Bid/Ask Spread is set by the liquidity of a stock. If the stock is highly liquid, it means many stock units are being bought and sold, and the Forex bid/ask spread will be lower. Traders prefer foreign currency ...
If you want to purchase shares right away, you are going to have to pay the asking price. Similarly, if you want to sell shares right away, you have to pay t... Bid and ask simply explained in this video will teach you about the importance of the bid ask spread when placing a trade. 📚 Take our FREE courses here: http... The Bid price is the price a forex trader is willing to sell a currency pair for. Ask price is the price a trader will buy a currency pair at. Both of these ... Understand how to deal with Bid Ask spreads in trading forex. Learn how to factor in the bid ask spread when placing trades in forex trading These are essent... What is Bid/Ask Spread - Explaining Bid Price, Ask Price, and Spread http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/Stock-market-workings.html PLEASE LIKE AND SHARE... Dealing with Bid/Ask Spreads in Forex Trading by Adam Khoo - Duration: 27:43. Adam Khoo 84,602 views. 27:43 . Buying Stock Options- How To Pick the Best Option to Buy on Every Stock - Duration: 7 ... What are bid and ask prices? What are the differences between the two? Master the basics of forex before trading on the real market. To register for a Demo o... Dealing with Bid/Ask Spreads in Forex Trading by Adam Khoo - Duration: 27 ... Forex Lot Sizes Explained - First In / First Out - Duration: 12:53. Jay Take Profits 34,605 views. 12:53. MetaTrader4 ... A lesson on the two way quote in forex trading referred to as the bid ask spread and what this means to us as traders of the forex market. Loading... Autoplay When autoplay is enabled, a suggested ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.