Tips and tricks!
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Jul 02, 2016 at 20:55
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Membre depuis Dec 11, 2015
posts 1487
Sep 13, 2016 at 10:08
Information like this comes out sooner or later. And if it comes out sooner sometimes consequences are felt months and months later. Take FXCM, for example. After the Swiss Bank unpegged the CHF from the EUR they lost big and were forced to take loans to remain afloat. It's been nineteen months and more since then, but the CTFC charged them with undercapitalization during the crisis just recently. (https://smnweekly.com/2016/08/19/us-cftc-charges-fxcm-with-undercapitalization/)
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Nov 15, 2016 at 16:48
Long SBH , this is a small trade with good upside potential , tight stoploss ,one other stock I'm watching is Gopro..anything under 10 is worth keeping an eye on.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Nov 15, 2016 at 17:06
Good trade on SBH, closed out at 26 as value was rated 27.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Nov 16, 2016 at 11:43
(édité Nov 16, 2016 at 11:55)
Can't see it going to 7.7 but can't be ruled out if they get more negative news,upside potential odds are better.
It's 10.13 in pre market.
It's 10.13 in pre market.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Nov 17, 2016 at 12:04
(édité Nov 17, 2016 at 12:10)
This video might help understand Forex a bit better for any new traders ,educational purposes only.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Membre depuis Mar 14, 2016
posts 35
Nov 17, 2016 at 13:58
trendfollowers posted:
The trend is your friend except at the end where it bends - Ed Seykota
I fully agree with this. New traders sometimes are excited by going against the trend but this is too risky. Combination of indicators like Momentum, Stochastic and Moving Averages could help in identifying strong trend signals for entering or leaving the market.
Nov 20, 2016 at 08:10
martinkolbe posted:trendfollowers posted:
The trend is your friend except at the end where it bends - Ed Seykota
I fully agree with this. New traders sometimes are excited by going against the trend but this is too risky. Combination of indicators like Momentum, Stochastic and Moving Averages could help in identifying strong trend signals for entering or leaving the market.
Correct point! Very often in the past when I didn't follow this simple rule, I ended up losing.
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Dec 01, 2016 at 16:09
Some insight into Trading the markets!
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Dec 02, 2016 at 08:01
snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.
Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁
I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.
For every loss there should be at least an equal and opposite profit.
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Dec 02, 2016 at 12:44
xgavinc posted:Yeah that word 'bank' catches most peoples attention on here , totally agree.snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.
Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁
I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Dec 02, 2016 at 14:45
Well, politically speaking, a bank should only be a service, but again, what kind of service asks you to let them 'hold' on to your money..... back in the day, all banks were seen as evil among the constitutionalist ,.... because they were. And they still are, but there is regulation that keeps them in check.
Limited daily withdrawal? nah man, it is your property, you should be fine to take what you want when you want it. if the bank or the bank system was to become unstable because of one dude withdrawing a billion bucks on one day, it is setup on fiat policy and primed to fail.
That being said, from a trading standpoint, I could care less what the banks do, or if a 'small' bank can actually compete with a 'large' bank.... it is a fractional reserve system built on fiat policy, what do you expect is going to happen.
Arn't we taught to trade what we see, not what we feel? I feel I know what is right and wrong, but who cares, right? I mean, I am not gonna cry about it. Instead, I focus on what is going on , or what could be speculated, and trade accordingly .
And I hate to break it to ya kiddo, but your balance BECOMES part of the fractional and therefore raises the reserve allotted to that bank . It has been that way in the US since 1913 and in the world since the 1950's .
Again, don't be upset, just learn more about it :)
Limited daily withdrawal? nah man, it is your property, you should be fine to take what you want when you want it. if the bank or the bank system was to become unstable because of one dude withdrawing a billion bucks on one day, it is setup on fiat policy and primed to fail.
That being said, from a trading standpoint, I could care less what the banks do, or if a 'small' bank can actually compete with a 'large' bank.... it is a fractional reserve system built on fiat policy, what do you expect is going to happen.
Arn't we taught to trade what we see, not what we feel? I feel I know what is right and wrong, but who cares, right? I mean, I am not gonna cry about it. Instead, I focus on what is going on , or what could be speculated, and trade accordingly .
And I hate to break it to ya kiddo, but your balance BECOMES part of the fractional and therefore raises the reserve allotted to that bank . It has been that way in the US since 1913 and in the world since the 1950's .
Again, don't be upset, just learn more about it :)
Everything in the market is like a fart, if you have to force it, it is probably shit
Membre depuis Feb 22, 2011
posts 4862
Dec 04, 2016 at 09:55
xgavinc posted:snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.
Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁
I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.
You know, in my country we dont have capitalism nor we have socialism. We have hybrid taking the worse from both systems.
Example?
Bank is risking too much lending to everyone making immense profit.
This profit is private - usually foreign owner.
When it comes to bankrupt as it cannot pay the loss government came and put billions into it to survive. It is not government money but money of the public.
So the loss is public.
Membre depuis Mar 14, 2016
posts 35
Dec 05, 2016 at 14:40
togr posted:
You know, in my country we dont have capitalism nor we have socialism. We have hybrid taking the worse from both systems.
Example?
Bank is risking too much lending to everyone making immense profit.
This profit is private - usually foreign owner.
When it comes to bankrupt as it cannot pay the loss government came and put billions into it to survive. It is not government money but money of the public.
So the loss is public.
Maybe a better solution could be not to completely recover or save it but just to compensate to some extent the deposits. You are right that in the end of day the people are losing as they fund the government. But I think it is again up to the person to decide how much and where to put the money.
Membre depuis Mar 14, 2016
posts 35
Dec 05, 2016 at 14:42
xgavinc posted:
banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.
If this would be the ideal case, then the scale for the banks is smaller. Maybe their services would become more expensive?
Dec 05, 2016 at 14:58
martinkolbe posted:xgavinc posted:
banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.
If this would be the ideal case, then the scale for the banks is smaller. Maybe their services would become more expensive?
Smaller Banks = More Banks = More Jobs = More Competition = Lower Fees (Remember the days you walked into the bank and they greeted you by name? - 1 monthly fee for a basket of day to day services and per transaction for personalized services)
Large banks can have branches operate independently of the group (if the branch fails it doesn't take the whole bank down, the unprofitable branch closes) - no more 'too big to fail' as all failed branches would close before the deck of cards fall.
For every loss there should be at least an equal and opposite profit.
Membre depuis Mar 14, 2016
posts 35
Dec 05, 2016 at 15:10
xgavinc posted:
Smaller Banks = More Banks = More Jobs = More Competition = Lower Fees (Remember the days you walked into the bank and they greeted you by name? - 1 monthly fee for a basket of day to day services and per transaction for personalized services)
Seems like the model for local grocery stores where we have a big competition with a lot of players. However, the small banks don't have that economy of scale and may charge you more for the same service.
I would also add the psychological aspect - who you will trust more to put your money in? Maybe there should be a completely innovative banking model, could be interesting as technology is constantly evolving. We see what's going on with the bitcoin these days 😄 Maybe something new will emerge in terms of banking.
Membre depuis Sep 12, 2015
posts 1948
Dec 06, 2016 at 11:53
This video takes a basic look at currency markets and some of the movers.
"They mistook leverage with genius".
Dec 07, 2016 at 16:01
@snapdragon1970 Thanks for sharing these videos. I hope to find time to watch them soon!
