Indeed, you don't trade on impulse, discipline trumps carelessness, refrain from entering at close to an all-time high or low, the chances of breaking the high or low significantly enough to make it worth the risk is low while the probability of a reversal at those points is high. No one is twisting your arm to enter a trade, sometimes it's best to wait and see what happens next before entering, regardless of what the charts tell you.
Trading the Indices on Fundamentals
- Thread starter FXtrader8911
- Start date
Tell that to 2017.
No disagreement there, 2017 was one of my worst performing years, particularly the 1st 3 months but by the 4th month it was clear that new highs and 30-50pt moves (DOW) were the norm so I got into the swing of things and took what the market was giving ending the year with just +$317k. In retrospect, I wasted the 1st 3 months but that only became obvious after, not at the time. 2017 wasn't a normal market, 2019 is. The motto in 2017 was "buy high to sell higher" At all other times the motto was/is "buy the dips"
BTW, 2017 got me into trouble going into 2018... I got complacent with entering large contracts to compensate the small moves... when volatility returned, the large contracts stressed my account, hedging avoided a catastrophe, the wake-up call made me return to manageable-sized contracts. Trading is as much about preserving capital as it is about making profit. I believe it was Stanley Druckenmiller that after 30 years of making $bb, got complacent and lost almost all of it....it happens, so I repeat, greed & impulsive trading will bring you down.
Last edited:
End of this month so a couple of day left
My style of trading is quite simple... fundamentals decide what direction to enter then I buy the dips... no dips, no trading. If the dip turns into a correction I hedge.
WOW, I probably won't make it then, my present focus is on a court case, can't really take-on something needing days of work till the case is over.
I took a quick look at the ASIC paper, IT'S 70 PAGES LONG!!! and the feedback needs detail, i.e. if not why not, give evidence, etc, etc
No way I can tackle this and the court matter simultaneously within the next 4 days so I intend to give just the example of how the proposal would affect me (and others like me) that have existing open positions, and how the proposed 20-day notice is totally inadequate considering I hold over 100 open contracts.
One thing I did not see within the 70 pages was WERE TO SEND THE FEEDBACK
Can you kindly give me the process of the feed-back viz. how & where to send it. (I have no time to read the 70 pages a second time to find that information).
Tks
It is on page 4 of the document.
Market.Supervision.OTC@asic.gov.au
For any real trader that reads it you will just pick holes through it. In many sections they are just wrong in terms of trading index cfd's. The example they gave has the person using all of his account $10k to take one position on an index at a 500:1 leverage. Idiotic. Not only that, they do not understand you only pay the spread for index trading and they were charging a commission on the trade in their example. The document is setup to get rid of CFD's. That is obvious. Do what you can as who ever wrote that document has obviously never made a trade in their life. It is most obvious they do not have the skills to make legislation around this. They do not understand the basics of how to use leverage.
I got the point... pointing out their misconceptions, blunt errors and distorted statics with examples correcting the above might just help a little. I'll give up my leisure time over the w/e to do a proposal in more detail than initially intended. My biggest concern is the 20-day implementation time-frame, totally inadequate! That in itself will cause account liquidations and forced losses. Markets do not usually co-operate in allowing existing positions to be closed gracefully within a fixed time-frame, giving a 20-day lead way is a recipe for fabricated disastrous consequences... the CFD providers stand to make $mm, just what ASCI is saying they are aiming to avoid. (Now I see why my provider informed me of the proposal but neglected to say I could appeal)
Last edited:
Markets gave a bit of a slap in the face to Trump... the threat of his departure from the office actually rallied markets, while it was ramped-up punishment on China that caused the sell-off. In my opinion, delisting some Chinese companies from US exchanges is a good thing as all Chinese companies owe their success to the party and answer to the party, not to mention that performance is fudged, their worth can go down or up at the Party's discretion and so could be weaponized to disrupt the US economy or to manipulate markets, Chinese companies, such as Alibaba, should have never got listed in the US.