Is forex market controlled by someone? - page 37

[Joshim]

It can’t be possible at all. Because, in this market place there is nobody who can predict the real faction of this market with surely. So, for keeping survive we have to depend on our trading strategy that we select in order to our trading experience. From my first day of trading I have been using scalping strategy that is considered as a foremost trading policy for making profit very rapidly. For using this trading policy I have chosen GCI which is very supportive to apply this strategy by providing only one pip trading spread.

[thenews]

OUTRAGEOUS: The stock market is rewarding companies that have bad news

If you were only looking at the stock market, which remains near record-high levels, then you'd have no idea that many companies are warning up front that the first three months of the year were worse than expected.

"For Q1 2015, 85 companies in the S&P 500 have issued negative EPS guidance and 16 companies have issued positive EPS guidance," FactSet's John Butters said. "If 16 is the final number of companies issuing positive EPS guidance for the quarter, it will mark the lowest number since Q1 2006."

Here's a little more color:

Due to the low number of companies issuing positive EPS guidance, the percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance for Q1 2015 is 84% (85 out of 101). This percentage is well above the trailing 5- year average (69%) and the trailing 1-year average (76%) for a quarter. If 84% is the final percentage for the quarter, it will mark the second highest percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance (and the second lowest percentage of companies issuing positive EPS guidance) for a quarter since FactSet began tracking the data in 2006. The current record is 85%, which was set in Q4 2013.

In recent years, it hasn't been unusual to see more companies announce negative guidance than positive guidance.

In recent months, the negativity has been tied to the oil prices crash and the stronger dollar.

It's hard to draw too many conclusions from this except that managements were just as surprised as everyone else by the unfavorable developments of late.

read more

[Ligia]

There are some national institutions that supervise and regulate the market in their countries, but there is no world wide authority yet for forex market.

[Mladen Rakic]

divisa35:
There are some national institutions that supervise and regulate the market in their countries, but there is no world wide authority yet for forex market.

It is not a matter of regulating

It is a matter of "controlling" (rigging) and unfortunately there are more and more evidence that forex market is rigged

[thenews]

28 Ways 'They' Rig The Market

[thenews]

Australia Regulator Furious As Central Bank Decision Leaked To HFTs For Third Time

For the third month in a row, FX 'traders' in AUD "guessed" the Reserve Bank of Australia's decision in the milliseconds before it was released to the public. Aussie regulators, seemingly furious at the blatant-ness of the front-running, confirmed they will be investigating the price spike overnight. As we noted last month, the rigged-ness of the markets was so clear as to suggest the decision was clearly leaked ahead of the public release as AUD spiked 70 pips on heavy volume in the 7 seconds before 230pm local time release. As ABC reports, concerns about whether some may be getting advanced notice of the central bank's impending decisions led RBA Governor Glenn Stevens to note his own concerns "about reports that there had been extraordinary trades before the release of the Reserve Bank decision yesterday." Will we see consequences this time?

read more

[thenews]

SEC Reaches "Appropriate" Settlement With Freddie Mac Execs Who Will Pay Nothing And Receive No Punishment

Last month, we discussed a government report which showed that, much to the chagrin of a few billionaires and a long line of retail investors who bought the proverbial dip, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be destined, by design, by decades of reckless behavior, and by Treasury decree, to be insolvent most of the time. Today, we learned that when it comes to accountability for the executives who helped put the companies in a position whereby receivership became necessary in mid-2008, we can forget about it.

In what was billed as a “high profile” case, the SEC had sought financial and other penalties against three former Freddie Mac executives who allegedly “misled” investors in 2006 by understating the amount of subprime exposure the GSE had on its books while it was simultaneously still sucking up and packaging bad loans. If the SEC allegations are indeed accurate, it’s probably safe to say that using the term “understated” to describe the executives’ misrepresentations is, well, an understatement, because it appears they may have lowballed the figure by a factor of 28. Here’s AP:

According to the SEC, Fannie and Freddie misrepresented their exposure to mortgages for borrowers with weak credit in reports, speeches and congressional testimony.

The SEC said Freddie told investors in late 2006 that it held between $2 billion and $6 billion of subprime mortgages on its books — but its actual subprime holdings were actually closer to $141 billion, or 10 percent of its portfolio in 2006, and $244 billion, or 14 percent, by 2008.

But all’s well that ends in a catastrophic housing market meltdown apparently because as WSJ notes, everyone seems to have gotten a pretty good deal considering their actions may have contributed mightily to the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression:

The civil case, filed in 2011, had alleged that three Freddie executives, including former Chief Executive Officer Richard Syron, knowingly misled investors about the volume of risky mortgages the company purchased as the housing boom came to an end. The SEC had sought financial penalties against the executives and an order barring them from serving as officers and directors at other companies.

Instead, the executives agreed for a limited time not to sign certain reports required by chief executives or finance chiefs and to pay a total of $310,000 to a fund meant to compensate defrauded investors.

The breakdown of the fees is as follows: Richard Syron, $250,000; Donald Bisenius, $50,000; Patricia Cook, $10,000. As you can see, Ms. Cook got off pretty easy, but then again, they all did because they don’t actually have to pay the fines:

Those amounts will be paid by insurance from Freddie Mac that covered the executives.

read more

[thenews]

The Australian financial regulator ASIC launched an investigation into the 'suspicious trading" responsible for the jump in the AUDUSD just prior to the release of the Reserve bank of Australia surprise decision to hold interest rates in March 3. On April 7 the Reserve Bank of Australia again surprised the market by holding rates. In the minute prior to the report release the market also reacted strongly. The financial regulator ASIC suggested this was evidence of inside trading. But is it really?

Closer examination of the charts casts a better light on this so-called inside trading activity.

The pair in focus is the AUDUSD. Here's the chart for March 3. Quite clearly there is a sharp move before the release of the report. The release time is shown as 13.00 on the 2 minute chart because we use local time on our computer system.

read more

[techmac]

That is 3 months in a row that the same thing was done before RBA rate decisions. Same is done with other CB, except that the time window is smaller

[myname]

Is there anybody the sincerely believes that forex is not rigged?