Forex discussion

Xela said:
They do have awful liquidity and slippage, though, by comparison ... o_O
More...
%% Good news + bad news on FX
I would not call FX a gamble , even if an older gentleman[mature enough to be dad] did. LOL-LOL. CS fined 13.5 million, i mean 135 million for FX crooked stuff today . The good news is they never ripped me off in ETFs, as far as i know + they [CS] diffused that bad news with a positive US news release on US tax cuts:caution::D:cool:
 
As one that trades both futures & Fx I see them as both fine for trading provided you have a regulated broker with a good track record. There are pros and cons to both.

Years ago it was the futures brokers going down in flames. Many trader lost a large portion of their accts, more recently it has been the Fx brokers going under. Now as far as thievery - futures are ripe with it. I have seen plenty of times when futures price spikes wildly away from the spot Fx. You also have some unregulated Fx brokers that are full of thievery.

Peter Brandt (market wizard) has been trading futures longer then a lot of people on here have been alive- yet he often opts to trade currencies on the larger Fx mkt due to the more stable spot price - remember spot is the primary mkt with 5,000% more liquidity than futures. Funny, I was always the biggest Fx critic before I started trading it - now, I defend it.
 
Xela said:
Good question. I don't know. My guess (and that's all it is) is "not" or "not significantly", because FXCM's US-resident former customers will mostly - perhaps almost all - have gone to places like Oanda, not switched to futures(?).
More...
No reflection on Oanda but I would like to see more traders move over to futures and out of spot forex.
 
Let me stab the first question. You can tell you have an edge when certain trade patterns you expect to find on the chart are actually present. Those conditions should be part of your trading plan. When you open your chart and those conditions are present, that's when you trade. If they're not present,you don't place your entry. There is no need to stress over this.
 
Overnight said:
But it can still be traded. Liquidity means nothing when you're working with one or two contracts.
More...

If you are starting out and wish to have less leverage, it could be fine. However, lack of liquidity in any contract does not make it a viable trading instrument. This is just my opinion.
 
MattZ said:
...However, lack of liquidity in any contract does not make it a viable trading instrument. This is just my opinion.
More...

Hrmm, I have to disagree there. MGC is the favorite example I use. Pull up a Feb 2018 chart on that, and look at the price action. It has same range as it's daddy, which it HAS to. As for the volume? Today Feb MGC has ~400, while Feb GC has ~22K.

I have personal experience with these little guys, and have never had a problem trading them as far as fills go.

It would be curious, however, in what would happen if one were to put an order in MGC for 400 contracts (it's total volume so far), which is 40 on GC.

Edit...As an aside, I just noticed that this is a Forex discussion. I have no experience with "Micro Forex" stuff, if there is such a thing. Apologies for that, perhaps my example is not good here. :-(
 
MattZ said:
If you are starting out and wish to have less leverage, it could be fine. However, lack of liquidity in any contract does not make it a viable trading instrument. This is just my opinion.
More...
I must agree with Matt on this one. Lack of liquidity would be a real problem for me. I am one of those guys who are always preaching trade only liquid markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top