Is forex market controlled by someone? - page 31
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
They will limit the bonuses? That is a travesty of law : the guys that should be in jail are going to get less for Christmas (the less meaning not going to get $50 million but "only" 25)
Don't worry : Dimon will get a raise
Currencies is just not governed by simply just about any establishment or regulating. I believe that the dealer themselves might have a little influence in handling the actual currency trading by simply their particular regulations in addition to solutions.
Currencies is just not governed by simply just about any establishment or regulating. I believe that the dealer themselves might have a little influence in handling the actual currency trading by simply their particular regulations in addition to solutions.
Regulations and control usually do not go hand in hand
5 banks are controlling 60% of forex volume. That means that forex is anything but un-rigged. By definition that is a total control (take a look of who and when exchanged chat and email messages and what banks were involved in that "chatting")
Currencies is just not manipulated by means of virtually any association or even regulating. I'm sure that this dealer alone might have a compact impact with preventing the particular foreign exchange by means of their particular regulations in addition to possibilities open.
Goldman Sachs FX trader suspended over rate rigging probe -WSJ
Goldman Sachs Group Inc, which was not part of last week's international settlement over allegations of manipulation in the foreign exchange market, dismissed a former HSBC trader for his alleged involvement in the manipulation, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Frank Cahill, who was asked to leave Goldman Sachs' London offices on Tuesday, worked as a currencies trader at HSBC Holdings PLC before joining Goldman Sachs in 2012, the report said, citing a person familiar with the matter. (on.wsj.com/1F0rDwm)
"This relates to a period before he joined Goldman Sachs and he has now left the firm," a Goldman Sachs spokeswoman said.
The dismissal came a week after regulators imposed fines totaling $4.3 billion on HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc , JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc, UBS AG and Bank of America Corp for failing to stop traders from trying to manipulate the forex market, following a year-long global investigation.
Cahill was one among a number of unidentified HSBC traders whose conversations in electronic chat sessions were quoted by the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission as part of the settlements, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the chat transcripts.
read more
Market Manipulation Probe Entangles Chicago Trading Firm
Chicago proprietary trading firm 3Red Trading LLC and co-founders Igor Oystacher and Edwin Johnson were subpoenaed in a market manipulation probe by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as U.S. regulators intensify investigations of the practice of “spoofing.”
Spoofing occurs when traders place and immediately cancel orders as a way to illegally move prices in their favor. Regulators and exchanges have been enforcing rules against the practice since passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The head of Panther Energy Trading LLC last month became the first person indicted under the law.
3Red, which says on its website that it trades commodities, equities, futures, options and interest rate products, was subpoenaed by the CFTC along with Oystacher and Johnson in 2012, according to filings in Chicago state court. The firm agreed to hand over trading records, and executives were interviewed in 2012 and last year by the regulator’s enforcement division, court papers stated.
The filings, and the probe, came to light as part of a lawsuit Johnson filed in June against 3Red’s law firm alleging a conflict of interest. As 3Red’s former chief risk officer and one-time minority owner, Johnson claimed in his suit that potential investors were being spooked by fears of “spoofing” at the firm.
A CFTC letter referring to the subpoenas was filed in court as part of his lawsuit. The regulator’s probe of 3Red remains active, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because it isn’t public.
read more
New Scrutiny of Goldman’s Ties to the New York Fed After a Leak
From his desk in Lower Manhattan, a banker at Goldman Sachs thumbed through confidential documents — courtesy of a source inside the United States government.
The banker came to Goldman through the so-called revolving door, the symbolic portal that connects financial regulators to Wall Street. He joined in July after spending seven years as a regulator at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the government’s front line in overseeing the financial industry. He received the confidential information, lawyers briefed on the matter suspect, from a former colleague who was still working at the New York Fed.
The previously unreported leak, recounted in interviews with the lawyers briefed on the matter who spoke anonymously because the episode is not public, illustrates the blurred lines between Wall Street and the government — and the potential conflicts of interest that can result. When Goldman hired the former New York Fed regulator, who is 29, it assigned him to advise the same type of banks that he once policed. And the banker obtained confidential information, along with several publicly available facts, in the course of assignments from his bosses at Goldman, the lawyers said.
The information provided Goldman a window into the New York Fed’s private insights, the lawyers said, including details about at least one of Goldman’s clients, a midsize bank regulated by the Fed. Although it is unclear how Goldman bankers used the information, if at all, the confidential details could have helped them advise the client.
The emergence of the leak comes as questions mount about a perceived coziness between the New York Fed and Wall Street banks — Goldman in particular. Revelations from a former New York Fed employee, Carmen Segarra, recently stoked that debate. Ms. Segarra released taped conversations suggesting that her supervisors went soft on Goldman, specifically over a deal that one regulator called “legal, but shady.” Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a senior Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, plans to hold a hearing on Friday about Ms. Segarra’s accusations.
On the same day in September that ProPublica and the radio program “This American Life” released excerpts from Ms. Segarra’s tapes, Goldman stopped the unrelated leak of confidential New York Fed records. Although it is unclear whether the Goldman banker or the New York Fed employee knew that sharing such information was inappropriate — and federal rules are somewhat vague about what records are confidential — Goldman promptly fired the banker. The bank also fired one of his supervisors, saying he should have caught the leak. The New York Fed then fired the employee it suspected of sharing the information.
source
Just in the last week major market makers were fined with over $6 billion
They are not just going to let it go. Expect another wave of rigging (only more hidden this time)
Veteran S&P Futures Trader:I Am 100% Confident That Central Banks Are Buying S&P Futu
I have been an independent trader for 23 years, starting at the CBOT in grains and CME in the S&P 500 futures markets long ago while they were auction outcry markets, and have stayed in the alternative investment space ever since, and now run a small fund.
I understand better than most I would think, the "mechanics" of the markets and how they have evolved over time from the auction market to 'upstairs". I am a self-taught, top down global macro economist, and historian of "money" and the Fed and all economic and governmental structures in the world. One thing so many managers don't understand is that the markets take away the most amounts of money from the most amounts of people, and do so non-linearly. Most sophisticated investors know to be successful, one must be a contrarian, and this philosophy is in parallel. Markets will, on all time scales, through exponential decay (fat tails, or black swans, on longer term scales), or exponential growth of price itself. Why was I so bearish on gold at its peak a few years back for instance? Because of the ascent of non-linearity of price, and the massive consensus buildup of bulls. Didier Sornette, author of "Why Stock Markets Crash", I believe correctly summarizes how Power Law Behavior, or exponential consensus, and how it lead to crashes. The buildup of buyers' zeal, and the squeezing of shorts, leads to that "complex system" popping. I have traded as a contrarian with these philosophies for some time.
The point here is, our general indices have been at that critical point now for a year, without "normal" reactions post critical points in time, from longer term time scales to intraday. This suggests that many times, there is only an audience of one buyer, and as price goes up to certain levels, that buyer extracts all sellers. After this year and especially this last 1900 point Dow run up in October, and post non-reaction, that I am 100 percent confident that that one buyer is our own Federal Reserve or other central banks with a goal to "stimulate" our economy by directly buying stock index futures. Talking about a perpetual fat finger! I guess "don't fight the Fed" truly exists, without fluctuation, in this situation. Its important to note the mechanics; the Fed buys futures and the actual underlying constituents that make up the general indices will align by opportunistic spread arbitragers who sell the futures and buy the actual equities, thus, the Fed could use the con, if asked, that they aren't actually buying equities.
They also consistently use events through their controlled media, whether bad or good price altering news, to create investment behavior. The "ending" QE 3, and the immediate Bank of Japan QE news that night, and thus the ability to not quit QE using them as their front, and then propping our markets on Globex, like this is suppose to be good news, free markets totally dependent on QE, is one example. Last night, Obama passing the amnesty bill, and the more great news about how Europe and now China are also printing money out of thin air and "stimulating" their economies with QE too, which in turn prompts the Fed to prop up overnight futures markets on Globex to make that look like great news as well. I guess this is suppose to create a behavioral pattern for investors, that dependency on government gives us positive feedback and is good, much like Pavlov's dog and the ringing of the bell.
Why would the Fed prop up our stock market to begin with? Weren't they just supposed to "stimulate" the treasuries market only, to keep interest rates low, indirectly, by an eventual direct purchase in secondary markets, keeping them propped up (for five years now!)? Well, first of all as it relates to equities and utilizing the "Plunge Protection" mandate, why not just bypass the "plunge" altogether. Can't the definition of Plunge Protection be just that? Protection against a plunge instead of during a plunge? Doesn't propping the market equate to "Plunge Protection" since propping alleviates plunge and "protects" us? Does it depend on what the definition of "is" is? And really, doesn't the Fed buying futures directly alleviate those bankers who take their money in TARP or however means and then this money doesn't make its way into the very heart of what the public deems as its consumption motivator, higher stocks and real estate? Plus, buying futures is a means of then delivering fiat cash upon every expiration, therefore, "stimulus" to someone who receives it.
The Fed boasts about having a printing press, and I guess this allows them to "fix" everything. They "print money out of thin air" we keep hearing (which is true by the way) and with US taxpayer backing (fiat currency (always fails throughout history)), (perhaps post QE 3 there is an Executive Order for QE infinity), they sit on the actual bid and hold our treasury markets steady, and by buying out big sellers as they arise like Russia and China via their Belgium central bank franchise as an example, propping our dollar and then staying on that bid by other franchises, having constant bid flow into equity futures in real time hours and Globex overnite, all in order to retain US consumer confidence (since that is what we are suppose to continue to do) and the image of global strength to keep the dollar from losing its reserve status. Their obsession of stopping a deflationary depression, has headfaked people like Bill Gross, formerly of PIMCO, and known to have started hedging long bond positions five years ago with the assumptions that Fed printing would be inflationary, and rates would move higher, but without the assumption of the perpetual direct bid in the market place by the Fed creating, "price discovery". For now, that is.
In the end, which they know exactly when that is, the ultimate con is exposed through mass theft. Americans finally find out what those guys on CNBC are talking about when they mention "inflation" and how it destroys buying power over time. The end reflects the Fed stepping away from the bid in all markets. Prior to this, of course, they prep their offshore fund accounts to take the other side and short dollar, short global equities, and short fixed income, with mass leverage for maximum gain. I mean, why wouldn't they? They are a private entity and are composed of non-US citizens with no accountability or oversight and they seem to be globalist humanists with a depopulation bent (Rockefeller Foundation). Why wouldn't they use our money to prop, their money to take other side in a massive global short play, then let it all crash by simply stepping off the bid of these markets. They can then use the controlled talking heads who can relay the complexities of fiat money, index arbitrage, money velocity, currency and CDO swaps, with some geopolitical China worries, whatever, but really emphasize that the whole capitalistic system and constitution was flawed to begin with anyways, and that perhaps totalitarian fascism would be best for the country at this point since everyone's wealth is destroyed overnight and are literally hungry. Perhaps Obama is just that person! Maybe Dinesh D'souza was right about Obama. This is the way to destroy us, or "equal" the playing field globally by taking us down to third world status, is it not? Leverage the American people's money by trillions of dollars at the tops of capital markets, then bury them in a death spiral? Maybe Thomas Jefferson knew what he was saying' "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
Why wouldn't anyone believe these words written here? Perhaps you can't imagine someone being so evil? Wasn't the Federal Reserve Bank concept initially funded by a Rothschild in the 1800s, who used the media to deceive the public and sway the London Stock Market down negatively, who then speculated against that panicking public's sell orders by taking long positions in stocks, then making a fortune when everyone found out that the news was wrong and positive? Then later another Rothschild founded our Federal Reserve in 1913, and others like JP Morgan who supposedly bought the US stock market in a banking panic and "saved" America in 1909? Aren't all of these Fed owners Fabian Socialists?
Details of this last market move:
This last 1900 point Dow Jones push upwards - and the Ebola events leading into it - it was so orchestrated and heightened at critical points but the ascent and push straight up in price, and sideways nonreaction after was completely unlike anything I've seen before. After going up for a record breaking amount of time the last five or so years, in a nonlinear exponential mania type of ascent, there should normally be tremendous volatility that follows. But, this isn't a tech-like mania! There aren't any buyers here other then the Fed. The shorts were all squeezed in 2009, 2010, 11, 12, and everyone who has ever wanted to buy stocks is in!
source
Global banks agree to pay $4.3 billion for manipulating currency markets
ONCE again, a handful of the world’s largest banks have agreed to pay vast amounts of money to settle an investigation, this time concerning the manipulation of benchmarks used in the trading of currencies. American, British and Swiss regulators clubbed together to squeeze six banks for $4.3 billion between them. Yet more fines may be in the pipeline.
The deal announced on November 12th follows a now familiar pattern: regulators release e-mails or instant messages they have harvested that indicate sleazy activity in an important market; banks issue statements that are contrite, emphatic about a commitment to moral values yet vague about what exactly occurred; no one charges any individuals with any crimes and lots of questions are left unanswered, including how the regulators calculated the penalties (Britain’s FCA being an honourable exception).
The banks—UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, JPMorgan, Citigroup, HSBC and Bank of America—were nabbed tinkering with the price of a widely used daily benchmark. Known as the WM/Reuters “fix”, it set prices for major currencies based on trades concluded during the 30 seconds either side of 4pm in London. The bankers involved diddled the fix to their own advantage. They colluded by sharing information about clients’ pending orders and adjusting their own prices accordingly. Easy profits and plentiful bonuses ensued. Losers included those whose foreign-exchange contracts were tied to the 4pm fix, including many firms and mutual funds.
Between 2008 and 2013 traders formed a cheery cartel, immortalised in online chat rooms whose contents have now been made public. “How can I make free money with no fcking heads up?” one HSBC banker asked. Others spoke of “double teaming” the “numpty’s” in the markets. The ethics were nearly as appalling as the spelling and grammar. A senior staffer at the Bank of England gave tacit blessing to some of the co-ordination (having been suspended in March, he was fired this week, apparently for unrelated reasons).
Regulators are particularly angered by the currency scandal because it came to light soon after banks were found to have tampered with LIBOR, a benchmark interest rate used to peg trillions in contracts globally. Banks paid fines (some are still negotiating them) and promised a change of culture they have failed to deliver.
Parallel investigations are still under way at two more regulators: America’s Department of Justice and New York’s Department of Financial Services, both of which have proven as eager to collect fees as the most aggressive bank. Huw van Steenis of Morgan Stanley reckons this round of payments will end up accounting for only one-third to one-half of the total regulators will extract. Clients who can establish they have been wronged could push for compensation, too.
Barclays, a British bank under investigation on similar grounds, did not join the settlement—perhaps because it is holding out for a deal with all the different regulators involved. Meanwhile BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank have been cleared by British authorities.
While quotes from the traders involved were included in the various settlement documents, their names were not. A number of individuals in the foreign-exchange divisions of the banks concerned have been suspended or left, but none has been charged with any wrongdoing. In theory, civil or criminal charges could be forthcoming as part of the investigation under way at the Department of Justice.
Whatever the legal ins and outs, it seems odd to determine the price of a vast realm of financial products using a “fix”. Global regulators earlier this year contemplated the introduction of a global exchange that would have largely cut banks out of the business. They decided instead to expand the window of the 4pm benchmark from 60 seconds to five minutes.
source