Discussion of article "Functions for Money Management in an Expert Advisor" - page 5

[Mykola Demko]

Karlson:

Lot's of stock 100 sherds.Adequate margin.

Or am I missing something....

Testing IBM, I could not understand at first why it does not allow to open more than 0.5 lot. Then I realised. 50 sherds at a price of about 200 - that's the entire initial deposit of 10,000 on margin.

What is "sherds"?

[Olegs Kucerenko]

Urain:
What is "shers" ?

One click of a button :)))

1 lot on NYSE = 100 shares.

Pieces of shares in one lot.

[Mykola Demko]

Karlson:

One click of a button :))

1 lot on NYSE = 100 shares.

Pieces of shares in one lot.

Well, this 1 lot for #Name = X shares is needed as a value returned by the MQL5 function SymbolInfoInteger().

[Olegs Kucerenko]

Is CONTRACT_SIZE wrong ?

[Mykola Demko]

Karlson:

Is CONTRACT_SIZE wrong ?

That's the point, CONTRACT_SIZE is already used in the margin calculation formula (see 2nd post on this page). For currencies it is quite enough, but for example for #IBM it is not.

[Olegs Kucerenko]

Yeah. I was stupid yesterday, and earlier, and maybe even today. I can't sleep at all.

I'm sorry, the deposit for 1 lot of IBM (100 shares) is 20,000 dollars. That's what I mean... No leverage... 1:1 to be exact.

I would write down the formula the other way round. It makes more sense to me personally.

SYMBOL_MARGIN = (SYMBOL_BID*SYMBOL_TRADE_CONTRACT_SIZE ) / ACCOUNT_LEVERAGE

And the output of 1 lot of shares (100 pieces) should be 200 $, not 20 000 $. The formula will be correct. But the output in reality is not the same. As if the leverage is not counted.

IBM ---- margin= (200 * 100 ) / 100 = $200 -- that should be it.

EURUSD ---- margin= (1.23936 * 100,000) / 100 = $1,239.36 -- all correct.

input double lot=1.0;
double marg1=0,marg2=0;
void OnStart()
    { 
     double bid=SymbolInfoDouble(_Symbol,SYMBOL_BID);
     OrderCalcMargin(ORDER_TYPE_BUY,_Symbol,lot,bid,marg1);
     OrderCalcMargin(ORDER_TYPE_SELL,_Symbol,lot,bid,marg2);
     
     Print(_Symbol,"    Buy Margin=",marg1,"     Sell Margin=",marg2);
    }

[Mykola Demko]

Karlson:

Yeah. I was stupid yesterday, and earlier, and maybe even today. I can't sleep at all.

I'm sorry, the deposit for 1 lot of IBM (100 shares) is 20,000 dollars. That's what I mean... No leverage... 1:1 to be exact.

I would write down the formula the other way round. It makes more sense to me personally.

And the output of 1 lot of shares (100 pieces) should be 200 $, not 20 000 $. The formula will be correct. But the output in reality is not the same. As if the leverage is not counted.

IBM ---- margin= (200 * 100 ) / 100 = $200 -- that's how it should be.

EURUSD ---- margin= (1.23936 * 100,000) / 100 = $1,239.36 -- all correct.

It seems that the leverage is not the issue, as the profit is very fast, I conclude that there are 100 contracts in the 1st lot, while on forex there are 1 contract in the 1st lot.

[Mykola Demko]

Rosh:

Don't talk in riddles. Have you found out that the calculation method written for Forex does not work here?

Yes, I have found out, it remains to find out which way of calculation works, but without knowing the internal representation I will be wandering in guesswork for a long time.

I need a clear position of MQ on this issue, from which we can proceed.

By the way, this is not an attack on your article (you pointed out a long time ago that it was written a long time ago). It is important for me to clarify the issue.

[Olegs Kucerenko]

Urain:

It seems that the matter is not in the leverage, as the profit runs up very quickly, I conclude that in the 1st lot there are 100 contracts, whereas in forex in the 1st lot there are 1 contract.

As discussed in a neighbouring thread, the leverage determines the possibility to open a larger volume. And the profit is simply counted in volume per pip. Well, there is also TickValue. It is important if the account is in euros.

No, the contract value is quite standard everywhere - 100 000 units ofbase currency. 100 units for shares. Except that Insta has a different size on the forex.

In any case, wait for an answer.

It's not logical to charge 20,000 for a lot of these shares. The maths is right. 200 * 100 =20,000, and no leverage. Where's it gone?

[Mykola Demko]

Karlson:

As discussed in a neighbouring thread, leverage determines the possibility of opening a larger volume. And profit is simply counted in volume per pip. Well, there is also TickValue. It is important if the account is in euros.

No, the contract value is quite standard everywhere - 100 000 units ofbase currency. 100 units for shares. Except that Insta has a different size on the forex.

In any case, wait for an answer.

It's not logical to charge 20,000 for a lot of these shares. The maths is right. 200 * 100 =20,000, and no leverage. Where's it gone?

TickValue on metals is different, on funds and forex it's 1 each.

If there was no leverage, the profit would not grow as it grows, imagine you opened 0.2 lots on the forex it is $20 000 and the same volume on the fund, and on the fund from such a deposit the profit grows as from $100 000 on the forex. so the leverage works, but the size of the contract is specified incorrectly, or rather some coefficient is not taken into account.

Perhaps indeed the fund has a standard contract of 100 shares, but with an order of 1 lot 100 standard contracts are opened. I don't have any other explanation (though this is a guess).

ZЫ here without "pallitra" and "help of the hall" it is impossible to solve.