NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 18
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
2 kombat
There was a case where a man lost a deposit (on the MICEX, I think), sued and proved that the trades were made by a robot. He won the trial and the bank gave him his money back. I don't know, maybe there are no such errors in the contract now.
What a mess.
>>This means somebody buys a car, studies, takes his driving test, attaches washing machine motor to the steering wheel, installs parking sensors in front of the car and runs a hoover motor with a hose to the brake pedal and goes
to crush the people in the yard, and then at the trial I was not me, it was all a robot behind the wheel. Bullshit
There was no such line in the contract.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that...
*
Indeed, for clients the visualisation of reporting becomes more complicated.
There is no need to argue, what the client wants is what he chooses according to his preferences and the size of the deposit.
No, wait...
What do you mean you don't need it?
The choice has been made a long time ago, we got used to it...
And then you get a constipated car instead of a Mercedes... ...like, eat it and don't choke on it...
*
We'll see when they start turning your car into a "Ukromark" to please the mayor,
>>) will there be an argument or not... ;)))
I am only interested in the technical aspects:
There is a BUY position with TakeProfit at A level.
And there is a SellLimit at A level.
What will happen after the 15th of May at NFA-DC? There are several variants:
1. BUY will be closed and SELL will be opened.
2. SellLimit will be cancelled and BUY will be closed.
3. Probability of 1st or 2nd point does not equal 100%.
I am only interested in the technical aspects:
There is a BUY position with TakeProfit at A level.
And there is a SellLimit at A level.
What will happen after the 15th of May at NFA-DC? There are several variants:
1. BUY will be closed and SELL will be opened.
2. SellLimit will be cancelled and BUY will be closed.
3. The probability of 1st or 2nd lot is not 100%.
:-))) poor NFA broker
They will just have to "profitably" kill the locking positions
---
sell 1.0 lot eur 1.6000 bay 1.2400 1.0 lot
here it does not matter what to kill
it is interesting what they will choose :-)))
Open positions should be left, including locked positions
A lock does not smell of cooking if no margin is taken on it. Zero margin for a lock is the law of the interbank.
On Currenex, HotSpotFXi and other ECN networks there is no concept of lock. How do the machines work there? Simple:
A high-level API is written, in which their orders, mages, etc. live. Correspondingly, the system is written on this API. And the locking of virtual orders is possible there, as well as everything else. This API is responsible for the accounting of virtual orders. The above mentioned ECN-Nets do not provide such API, they simply do not have it. You can write it yourself using a low-level FIX API.
You just need to understand that lock is convenient for automated trading, because it is easy to diversify several systems (a system with different input parameters can also be treated as a separate one). Why it is convenient? Because you just start it, and that's it!
The OWN high level API has its own huge disadvantage - if there is a failure in the virtual orders database, the virtual orders will not be recoverable.
There are interbank integrators like Dukascopy who have implemented the lock. Their high-level API is already built into the platform. So, even if you enter the lot manually, it's Ok, because there isn't really a lot, but there are two virtual oppositely directed orders. The virtual orders can be observed directly in the platform
And if we could say in MT4 that what we see are virtual orders but their amounts are the real orders, then no lock-in would be needed. But again, ONLY at zero margin per lock.
...
And if MT4 could say that what we see are virtual orders, but their amounts are the real state of affairs, then no bans would be needed. But again, ONLY at zero margin per lock.
By and large we already see virtual orders in MT...
Mutual obligations system accounting tickers... that's the client side.
And on the server side you can adjust to any accounting system!
Client side, current side, and in parallel there for reporting to the Central Bank or other regulators.
And there is nothing to contradict or contradict anyone...
*
Everything else is contrived due to the lack, or rather the complete absence, of regulatory legislation.
Doesn't it seem strange to ban something that doesn't exist...? ;)
*
That sounds like the current religious orthodoxy...
In the days of Jesus, Allah, Krishna and other celestials, they had no idea about electricity, cars,
computers, telephones and zombies...
Yet by the will of the Most Gracious We, the *sacred authority* command to ban these diabolical toys!
:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
In MT4, everything is virtual. The game is a casino. That's why it's strange to ban locks on MT4-DCs. But the NFA does not apply to MT4-DCs, but to everyone who lies under them. In MT4 we have to roughly change the client (not the server side) of the terminal and the rules to determine the current order as a virtual one.
The other (non-MT4) brokerage companies will find it much easier, they will change their platform a little bit, amend the regulation on virtual orders and the clients will not even change anything in their work. Everything will remain as it is. But these brokerage companies have a minuscule client base, so they almost all will not change anything....
But NFA-MT4-DCs will have a serious outflow of clients.
In MT4, everything is virtual. The game is a casino. That's why it's strange to ban locks on MT4-DCs. But the NFA does not apply to MT4-DCs, but to everyone who lies under them. In MT4 we have to roughly change the client (not the server side) of the terminal and the rules to determine the current order as a virtual one.
The other (non-MT4) brokerage companies will find it much easier, they will change their platform a little bit, amend the regulation on virtual orders and the clients will not even change anything in their work. Everything will remain as it is. But these DTs have a minuscule client base, so they almost all won't change anything....
But the NFA-MT4-DCs are going to get a serious customer churn.
I dare to assure you... that in any dealing house the orders are virtual...
Whether it's a small nouveau riche or a big Sachs... ;)
The MT and the casino is too much...
*
If there's any doubt about that, ask a simple question to the dealer:
- which ledger the order (ticker) is shown in
When you receive an answer please let me know ... we are waiting for you... :)))))))))))))))))))))
My previous post does not contradict the fact: any dealing is a casino.
There will be no proof.