Is forex market controlled by someone? - page 21
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Of course that it is controlled. Free market is the same phrase as civil rights : nonexistent
I don't know about forex market but bitcoin market is 100% controlled by money launderers
U.S. House Panel Says It Can Ignore SEC Subpoenas in Insider-Trading Probe
The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee and a top staff member say the panel and its employees are “absolutely immune” from having to comply with subpoenas from a federal regulator in an insider-trading probe.
The committee yesterday responded to U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe’s order to explain why it hadn’t complied with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s requests for documents, phone records and testimony of aide Brian Sutter for more than a year. Gardephe gave the House until yesterday to answer.
Kerry W. Kircher, the top lawyer for the House, said the SEC’s request should be dismissed because the information it seeks concerns legislative activities protected by the Constitution, which can’t be reviewed by federal judges. If Gardephe won’t dismiss the SEC’s case, it should be transferred to federal court in Washington, Kircher said.
“What the SEC has done is embark on a remarkable fishing expedition for congressional records -- core legislative records,” Kircher said in a court filing. “The SEC invites the federal judiciary to enforce those administrative subpoenas as against the Legislative Branch of the federal government. This court should decline that invitation.”
The so-called speech and debate clause in the Constitution protects members of Congress and staff from any outside inquiry into legislative business.
read more
"Unrigged?" The Bulk Of Odd Lot Trades On US Exchanges Are 1-Share-Lots!
If the market's are not 'rigged' by HFT teasers front-running any 'real' flow that happens to take its chances on the public stock exchanges, then please - - someone explain this chart.
As Nanex shows, the massive bulk of oddlot trades on most of the major US equity markets are 1-share-lots! (the spike in the far left of the scale)
Paging Mary White - stil convinced there's no 'rigging' going on here.
source
I wonder how long the market has been controlled. Perhaps that is one reason why 95% of traders lose.
I wonder how long the market has been controlled. Perhaps that is one reason why 95% of traders lose.
Nope
They are losing because they think that they are above the rules and that the rules aply to all the rest except to them. It is so, but they are missing something : they are not the ones that have the money. hey just want it. The one that holds the money is controlling the game
Thinking that the money owners are going to leave the market live for itself and regulate itself is not wise. Regardless of the theory, ignoring the human nature and the way how the business is conducted for the sake of the clarity of some economic theory is rather obsolete - it is simply ignoring the most powerful force driving the market.
Expecting that those people are not going to reach some kind agreement to make their own income raise (their income, not ours) is even less serious thinking
Stanford victims not able to file claims: Court
A U.S. appeals court dealt a blow to the victims of Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme on Friday, ruling that they are not eligible under federal law to file claims seeking compensation for their losses.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also marks a major loss for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is likely to be precedent-setting.
The SEC was seeking to overturn a lower court's decision from 2012 in which a federal judge rejected a request by the agency to force the Securities Investor Protection Corp (SIPC) to start court proceedings for the fraud victims, some of whom lost millions of dollars.
"In declining to grant the SEC's requested relief, the district court expressed that it was 'truly sympathetic to the plight' of the victims,'' wrote Judge Sri Srinivasan in the unanimous opinion.
``We fully agree. But we also agree with the district court's conclusion...,'' Srinivasan wrote.
A representative for the SEC and a spokeswoman for the coalition of Stanford investors who lost their money could not be immediately reached for comment on the decision.
The case marks the first time that the SEC, which oversees the SIPC, has ever filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit corporation to try and force it to start a court liquidation proceeding.
The SIPC, which was created by Congress, administers an industry-backed fund that is used to compensate investors if their brokerage collapses.
In a brokerage liquidation, a trustee winds down the business and returns securities and other assets to customers and creditors.
Over the years SIPC has handled high-profile liquidations, including Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
But in the case of the Stanford victims, SIPC has said these investors did not qualify as "customers'' under the law.
The law, SIPC argued, limits it to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms.
While Stanford's Texas-based brokerage Stanford Group Company was a SIPC member, its offshore bank was not. SIPC also said it was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud or guarantee an investment's value.
Allen Stanford was convicted of fraud and sentenced in June 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.
source
U.K. SFO Said Close to Opening FX-Rigging Investigation
U.K. prosecutors are preparing to open a criminal investigation into alleged manipulation of foreign-exchange benchmarks, a person with knowledge of the matter said.
The Serious Fraud Office could announce the investigation as soon as this week, the person said, asking not to be named because the move isn’t public.
“We are receiving and examining complex data on this topic,” the SFO said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “If and when we open a criminal investigation, that decision will be announced.”
Authorities around the world have been investigating whether traders rigged the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency market after the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority said it was looking into the matter in June 2013. Regulators and prosecutors are scrutinizing allegations that dealers at the world’s biggest banks traded ahead of their clients and colluded to rig the WM/Reuters rate, a benchmark that pension funds and money managers use to determine what they pay for foreign currencies.
No firms or individuals have been accused of wrongdoing.
UBS AG (UBSN), the fourth-biggest currency trader, has sought to reduce any potential punishment from U.S. and European Union authorities by cooperating with antitrust investigators and reporting on its own conduct in currency markets, people with knowledge of the matter said in February.
read more
G20 watchdog orders Libor alternatives by 2016 in benchmark reform
Global regulators will implement a twin-track approach to ensuring interest rate benchmarks are less prone to manipulation, recommending safeguards to the current system as well as developing alternatives.
Ten banks and brokerages including Barclays and UBS have paid a total of around $6 billion to date to settle U.S. and European regulatory allegations that they manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, a benchmark against which around $450 trillion of financial products from derivatives to home loans are priced worldwide.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB), which coordinates financial regulation for the Group of 20 economies (G20), has looked at how Libor could be made less prone to rigging, such as by basing the benchmark "to the greatest extent possible" on actual market transactions.
Libor is currently based on banks quoting rates at which they think they could borrow from another bank.
The FSB, which has been working on the plans since last year, has agreed with market practitioners - mainly banks and brokerages - on a so-called "multiple-rate approach" to reforming Libor over the coming two years.
This will involve strengthening Libor - and its continental European counterpart Euribor and Japanese rate Tibor - by underpinning them with market transactions data, the FSB said on Tuesday.
Administrators of the benchmarks have until the end of next year to consult on any changes to the current system.
Alongside this, the regulator said work should also start on developing alternatives, such as so-called "nearly risk-free reference rates," which would be entirely based on verifiable market transactions.
The FSB wants at least one risk-free rate by the second quarter of 2016. "Developing such alternative reference rates meets the principle of encouraging market choice," the FSB said.
RISK-FREE RATE
Alternatives could be based on government bond rates, the overnight indexed swap rate, or compounded overnight interest rates. Shifting a material proportion of derivative transactions to a risk-free rate would reduce the incentive to manipulate rates, the FSB said.
EONIA, or euro overnight index average, an overnight interest rate, was a viable, actively used, nearly risk free and available, the FSB added.
Having a range of benchmarks would better fit the needs of differing market participants and reduce possible systemic risk from relying on just one type of rate, the FSB said.
Yet some participants remain concerned of possible market disruption as a result of the reforms and one expert group - made up of banks - said in a report to the FSB that in most cases, fall-back provisions are not sufficiently robust for a permanent discontinuation of any key "ibor" rate and the transition to any new rates must be coordinated.
Meanwhile the FSB is also seeking to bridge a divide among regulators.
One U.S. agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), wanted to scrap Libor and replace it with a market-transactions based benchmark. Others, including Martin Wheatley, chief executive of Britain's Financial Conduct Authority and who co-headed the FSB's taskforce on benchmarks, have been more cautious, saying such a sweeping change carried risks.
Some financial products based on Libor, Euribor and others in the same family stretch out many years, making a quick change legally tricky.
The FSB expects there will be differences in how countries implement the twin-track approach to reform, for several reasons - including the differing availability of underlying transactions data and different markets for near-risk-free rates. The FSB also said there were different levels of willingness to use supervisory or other means to encourage market participants to adapt to a multiple-rate approach.
Separately, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a review of how the administrators of Libor, Euribor and Tibor - Intercontinental Exchange Inc for instance in the case of Libor - had complied with new standards for the benchmarks that it introduced last year.
IOSCO said none of the three could show that data used was sufficiently accurate and reliable. The administrators must say by the end of 2014 how they will address the failings ahead of more checks next year.
source