Correct calculation of currency indices. - page 14
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
This is the formula by which the index is calculated
That I know. I don't think it's transparent (correct) the very way of finding it in this scheme. But this is personal and I won't argue about it.
All of this needs to be checked.
As of today, I can state that there is no meaningful cross-correlation between currency indices and currency instruments and it does not depend on the way the index is constructed.
All of this needs to be checked.
As of today, I can state that there is no meaningful cross-correlation between currency indices and currency instruments and it does not depend on the way the index is constructed.
kills me - I don't understand what's here and where it's coming from.
It is the formula by which the index is calculated
This formula shows :
The calculation of the dollar index (USDX) on a basket of six currencies is not accidental - it matches the data used by the US Federal Reserve in calculating the trade-weighted dollar index on the currencies of those countries that form the main US foreign trade turnover. Most of US international trade is with the Eurozone (57.6%), followed by Japan (13.6%), the UK (11.9%), Canada (9.1%), Sweden (4.2%) and Switzerland (3.6%).
And it was derived a hell of a long time ago. Since then, the US foreign trade ratio has changed considerably (e.g. China stormed in like a typhoon). Therefore the formula is, at the moment, worthless.
And it was taken out a heck of a long time ago. Since then, the US trade balance has changed considerably (e.g. China stormed in like a typhoon). The formula is therefore, at the moment, worthless.
Can we give a typhoon value - % in US trade turnover. % of US trade turnover for 6 countries in total US trade turnover.
The calculation of the dollar index (USDX) by a basket of six currencies is not accidental - it matches the data used by the US Federal Reserve in calculating the trade-weighted dollar index by the currencies of those countries which make up the main US foreign trade turnover.
Because I'm far from the Fed, I can't give reliable data on US trade turnover, but you can look it up online if you need those figures that badly.
The words "about nothing" need to be proven, it just doesn't roll here.
You don't have to prove "nothing" because there is no subject to prove, you have to prove the validity of the index in some context.
For example, prove that there is a significant cross-correlation between indexes and currency symbols, and it strongly depends on how the index is constructed.
Because I am far from the Fed, I cannot give reliable data on US trade turnover, but you can search the internet if you need these figures so badly.
You don't have to prove "nothing" because there is no subject to prove, you have to prove the validity of the index in some context.
For instance, prove that there is a significant cross-correlation between indexes and currency p airs, and it strongly depends on how the index is constructed.
There is no need to jump off topic. "About nothing" is your statement. Prove it as you see fit, If you don't want to, you can't - no need to flub in relation to concepts that apply all over the world.
Understand, among the "gl obally applied " concepts there are not only useless, but even harmful.
Understand, there are plenty of "globally applicable " concepts that are not only useless, but even harmful.