The most important chart for trading - page 7
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 another nonsense disguised by half-truths.
And as you know, half-truths are worse than lies (popular wisdom).
Deena deliberately did not show the risk with different leverage. It would have been enough to show another column of equity change (in % of position margin) for a 1% change in asset price and everything would have been immediately clear. Any honest person who has completed 7th grade in high school would have done so. But Dina has not. So she is the only smart one, and the international Basel Accords and leverage limitation regulations are nonsense according to Deena. And the American laws and the Dodd-Frank law limiting the leverage for Forex to 1:50, according to Deena, is nonsense, they're all idiots on Wall Street there.
Even CNBC's website specifically explains the dangers of leverage for the common people:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/16/forex-leverage-how-it-works-why-its-dangerous.html
Even the most popular simple Investopedia website explains the dangers of leverage clearly and on their fingers:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/092115/how-much-leverage-right-you-forex-trades.asp
But Dina stubbornly talks gibberish and only sees the comfort side of leverage and sort of doesn't see the danger of increased risk when using leverage.
Leverage is a BOTTOM sword.
Stop insulting and speculating about me. Behave yourself.
And before you rattle off terms, try to understand them.
Also, you still haven't given an explanation about spot forex and the dangers of leverage in doing so. And you haven't yet provided links to the claims you've been attributing to mehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/166224/page5#comment_3987146.
Instead, you keep piling on with your speculations.
And as you know, half-truths are worse than lies (popular wisdom).
Dina deliberately did not show the risk with different leverage. It would have been enough to show another column of change in equity (in % of position margin) for a 1% change in asset price - and everything would have been immediately clear. Any honest person who has completed 7th grade in high school would have done so. But Dina has not. So she is the only smart one, and the international Basel Accords and leverage limitation regulations are nonsense according to Deena. And the American laws and the Dodd-Frank law limiting forex leverage to 1:50, according to Deena is nonsense, they are all idiots on Wall Street.
1. the Basel Accords apply only and exclusively to banks.
2. Show me - where exactly in the Dodd-Frank law are leverage limits imposed? Which clause exactly? Prohibiting US residents from trading in forex and other OTC markets - there is, the Volcker rule distinguishing between consumer lending and participation in hedge funds etc. - there is. What's the leverage limit there?
I said everything I wanted to say and explain in this thread. I did it with references and explanations. You can easily find all the other details via the links and a web search.
But if any group of unemployed trolls has problems with reading simple Russian text, or with 5th-7th grade maths, then it's only their group's problem, and their stupid group supervisor's problem.
I hereby leave you, dear forum users (for about a year and a half), I have to work.
P.S. The Dodd-Frank Act sets the maximum leverage in the major markets at 1:15, and ALSO delegates to the government commission(s) to impose additional leverage limits on the various markets. This is so-called "legal disposition" (not always a good thing, smells like socialism, but sometimes applies). Only a complete idiot would be ignorant of CFTC rules.
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr5883-10
/go?link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/09/02/new-cftc-forex-trading-rules-call-for-501-leverage/[hash]77e210222f0b
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/cftc-finalizes-forex-rules-leverage-reduced-to-150/
I have said in this thread all that I wanted to say and explain. And I have done it with references and explanations. You can easily find all the other details via the links and web search.
But if any group of unemployed trolls has problems with reading simple Russian text, or with 5th-7th grade maths, then it's only their group's problem, and their stupid group supervisor's problem.
I hereby leave you, dear forum users (for about a year and a half), I have to work.
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr5883-10
/go?link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/09/02/new-cftc-forex-trading-rules-call-for-501-leverage/[hash]77e210222f0b
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/cftc-finalizes-forex-rules-leverage-reduced-to-150/
I saw - "Some of the changes are crystal clear - like new 50:1 leverage limits on major forex currencies".
But it is not Dodd-Frank law (there is no such thing) - it is a rule introduced by CFTS.
Has Podolyak already left?
Well, in the back, so to speak:
The myth of big leverage.
We have two accounts: one with 1:100 leverage and the other with 1:500 leverage. In both accounts we have opened the same position, e.g. buy eurusd with 0.01 lot.
Question: which account has higher risk? The answer: the risk is the same. Suppose we lose 100 pips, for 0.01 lot that equals 10$, will the loss amount increase or decrease due to the leverage level? Not at all.
In general, large leverage allows you to open large positions with small amounts of money in your account. No more.
If you use an adequate level of risk, and have prudent capital management, then even if your leverage is 1:100 or 1:500 - it makes no difference.
But if you want to play roulette, by setting on the account some Martingale-advisor, or opening large lots, then yes - the high leverage will allow you to prolong a little fun, before the onset of a margin call.
To sum it up - the amount of leverage does not affect the level of risk in trading. The risk level is influenced by the size of positions that a trader opens and nothing else. (from) TLP
---------
And from me, Sergei. When you are rude to a woman - the second "o" from your last name is shamefully hidden.
It seems so small, but how much conscience. The letter--
By your own logic:
there are two traders, one has a $10 account and the other a $1,000 account.
Both have opened, say, a buy eurusd with a lot of 0.01.
The "position size" is the same for both, and the risk is the same for both?
By your own logic:
there are two traders, one has a $10 account and the other a $1,000 account.
Both have opened, say, a buy eurusd with a lot of 0.01.
The "position size" is the same for both, and the risk is the same for both?
Don't twist things around and confuse fiddling with petting.
The question is: one is green, the other to Africa-
There's no need to twist things around and confuse fading with petting.
It's a question of one being green, the other going to Africa-
Good for you!
Now on the subject, both have the same open position. And the risk?
Well done!
Now on the subject - both have the same open position. And the risk?
The risk is minimal if you only behave like this on the website-
The risk is minimal if you only behave like this on the website-