Is high leverage really bad for traders? | Page 2 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

High leverage vs Low leverage 74 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 21 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 20 replies

Is high leverage really bad for you? 10 replies

Hi! I’m Mr Short and I’m a bad forex trader! (the AA for bad traders) 67 replies

Attachments: Is high leverage really bad for traders?
Exit Attachments

Is high leverage really bad for traders?

  • #21
  • Mar 21, 2007 3:45pm Mar 21, 2007 3:45pm
Quoting FXTerminator
So let's say I open a forex position with $100 (that's ALL I have in my account) and I now control $10,000 worth of currency. What is the leverage?

Right, 100:1

Now let's say I tell you this over a beer: "Hey Faure, you know what, I have $10,000 dollars just sitting and collecting dust in ANOTHER forex account with ANOTHER forex broker".

Now you mean to tell me that NOW my leverage is not 100:1 ANYMORE but 1:1 simply because I told you that I have $10,000 somewhere else ??? Come on! What if I tell you that I lied, that the $10,000 is in the cookie jar in my kitchen instead, am I still trading with 1:1 leverage according to you?

Leverage has NOTHING to do with your trading balance, nothing! It simply means how much money you can control with X amount of money, period. How much money you have in your FX account, your bank account, your mattress or your attic has nothing to do with leverage, nothing.

This is what FX is all about: "Give me $100 and I will let you own $10,000 worth of currency (100:1 leverage)". How much money is ALREADY in your FX account or how much money you INTEND to wire to your FX account each week/month is totally irrelevant.
Here - dont take my word for it - see if you notice a definition anywhere in here.


How much leverage should you use?


Maximizing growth without risking bankruptcy

Many hedge fund disasters come not from making the wrong bets – that happen to the best of us – but from making too big a bet by overleveraging. On the other hand, without using leverage (i.e. borrowing on margin to buy stocks), we often cannot realize the full growth potential of our investment strategy. So how much leverage should you use?

Surprisingly, the answer is well-known, but little practiced. It is called the Kelly criterion, named after a mathematician at Bell Labs. The leverage f is defined as the ratio of the size of your portfolio to your equity. Kelly criterion says: f should equal the expected excess return of the strategy divided by the expected variance of the excess return, or

f = (m-r)/s2


(The excess return being the return m minus the risk-free rate r.)

This quantity f looks like the familiar Sharpe ratio, but it is not, since the denominator is s2, not s as in the Sharpe ratio. However, if you can estimate the Sharpe ratio, say, from some backtest results of a strategy, you can also estimate f just as easily. Suppose I have a strategy with expected return of 12% over a period with risk-free rate being 4%. Also, let’s say the expected Sharpe ratio is 1. It is easy to calculate f, which comes out to be 12.5.

This is a shocking number. This is telling you that for this strategy, you should be leveraging your equity 12.5 times! If you have $100,000 in cash to invest, and if you really believe the expected values of your returns and Sharpe ratio, you should borrow money to trade a $1.2 million portfolio!
Man who scratches ass should not bite fingernails
  • #22
  • Mar 21, 2007 3:58pm Mar 21, 2007 3:58pm
Quoting FXTerminator
So let's say I open a forex position with $100 (that's ALL I have in my account) and I now control $10,000 worth of currency. What is the leverage?

Right, 100:1

Right.

Now let's say I tell you this over a beer: "Hey Faure, you know what, I have $10,000 dollars just sitting and collecting dust in ANOTHER forex account with ANOTHER forex broker".

Now you mean to tell me that NOW my leverage is not 100:1 ANYMORE but 1:1 simply because I told you that I have $10,000 somewhere else ???
Come on! What if I tell you that I lied, that the $10,000 is in the cookie jar in my kitchen instead, am I still trading with 1:1 leverage according to you?

In the above your point seems to be that money that is not in your account is irrelavant. I agree.

Leverage has NOTHING to do with your trading balance, nothing! It simply means how much money you can control with X amount of money, period. How much money you have in your FX account, your bank account, your mattress or your attic has nothing to do with leverage, nothing.

This is what FX is all about: "Give me $100 and I will let you own $10,000 worth of currency (100:1 leverage)". How much money is ALREADY in your FX account or how much money you INTEND to wire to your FX account each week/month is totally irrelevant.

That's where you're wrong. Leverage is a multiplyer of both risk/ return, that's why it exists. So there is a direct link between leverage and risk/return. If you're going to measure your risk/return against your account balance why measure leverage against your margin utilisation rate? Shouldn't you be measuring it against your account balance too. You don't say, "Gee I made $10 off trading a mini-lot ($10 000) and the margin I need to trade that was only $100 (1:100). Therefore I must have made 10%!", meantime your account balance was really $10 000, your leverage was 1:1 and you only made 0.1%. Leugimp made the same point.
That's not what I'm saying at all. All that matters is how much money is in the account. Not in the cookie jar, not anywhere else. Just in the account which you have used to make that trade and in which the trading p/l will be reflected.

To quote Leugimp:
Quoting Leugimp
So I guess if you have a 100K account with 100:1 leverage offered and you make $1000 dollars over the course of a year, you would say that you made 100% in that year - bravo - I can now tell my family that even though they are only up 15% for the year, they really are up 1500% on their "margin money". What is the use of that logic.
It's all about your account balance not your margin utilisation rate.

I'm not trying to attack you here I just want you to see where you're going wrong in your thinking.
  • #23
  • Mar 21, 2007 4:20pm Mar 21, 2007 4:20pm
Quoting Leugimp
Here - dont take my word for it - see if you notice a definition anywhere in here.


How much leverage should you use?


Maximizing growth without risking bankruptcy

Many hedge fund disasters come not from making the wrong bets – that happen to the best of us – but from making too big a bet by overleveraging. On the other hand, without using leverage (i.e. borrowing on margin to buy stocks), we often cannot realize the full growth potential of our investment strategy. So how much leverage should you use?

Surprisingly, the answer is well-known, but little practiced. It is called the Kelly criterion, named after a mathematician at Bell Labs. The leverage f is defined as the ratio of the size of your portfolio to your equity. Kelly criterion says: f should equal the expected excess return of the strategy divided by the expected variance of the excess return, or


f = (m-r)/s2



(The excess return being the return m minus the risk-free rate r.)

This quantity f looks like the familiar Sharpe ratio, but it is not, since the denominator is s2, not s as in the Sharpe ratio. However, if you can estimate the Sharpe ratio, say, from some backtest results of a strategy, you can also estimate f just as easily. Suppose I have a strategy with expected return of 12% over a period with risk-free rate being 4%. Also, let’s say the expected Sharpe ratio is 1. It is easy to calculate f, which comes out to be 12.5.

This is a shocking number. This is telling you that for this strategy, you should be leveraging your equity 12.5 times! If you have $100,000 in cash to invest, and if you really believe the expected values of your returns and Sharpe ratio, you should borrow money to trade a $1.2 million portfolio!
I am already familiar with the Kelly formula even though I don't use it at all in my trading. I use the much, much superior Fixed Ratio position sizing as described by R. Jones.

That's said Kelly's definition of leverage has of course nothing to do with FX, we are simply playing with words here.
  • #24
  • Mar 21, 2007 4:32pm Mar 21, 2007 4:32pm
Quoting FXTerminator
I am already familiar with the Kelly formula even though I don't use it at all in my trading. I use the much, much superior Fixed Ratio position sizing as described by R. Jones.

That's said Kelly's definition of leverage has of course nothing to do with FX, we are simply playing with words here.

You are too funny - I can't tell if your a schitzo lawyer or a highschool prom queen.
Man who scratches ass should not bite fingernails
  • #25
  • Mar 21, 2007 5:00pm Mar 21, 2007 5:00pm
Quoting FXTerminator
Here is a another typical trading myth: high leverage is bad for you!

.


Since this is in the beginners section, I will respond. :

High leverage is bad for new traders. It gives them the impression that they are capable of more than they really are. In a 400:1 account, a new trader with $500 will say, "I will use just 1/4 of my account to trade." Of course, one trade of -50 pips will stun a new trader. As you know, new traders come with a dream... not the belief that they will get hammered their first trade. Now that they have just $250 left in their account... they will actually gamble that last half to try and get the $250 they had just lost.

However, if leverage for the newbie was just 20:1, 10:1... they could in fact say "I will use all my account." Their first trade they would still lose -50pips, however, they would be sitting on $450-$475 account balance and would still be able to maintain that dream they had. This would also be a learning experience for them ... instead of a devestating blow to their hopes.

Now, a veteran trader would get that 400:1 account and simply say "I will trade 5% of my account balance to start." If he loses that same 50 pips, he will be in roughly the same position as the newbie with 20:1.

I am just trying to give a perspective here. I have spoken with enough of my peers to know that they were seriously thrown off by the leverage deal. They literally had no idea that they would get hit so hard. Traders that know what is going on have nothing to fear of high leverage.

So new traders... trade micro lots... not minis. Don't send in $500 to a broker that lets you trade minimum $1/pips. Your dream not only will last longer, it may just last long enough to actually come true.
The market is my nation. Traders, my family. Hello, brothers and sisters!
  • #26
  • Mar 21, 2007 5:52pm Mar 21, 2007 5:52pm
Quoting StockKJay
Since this is in the beginners section, I will respond. :

High leverage is bad for new traders. It gives them the impression that they are capable of more than they really are. In a 400:1 account, a new trader with $500 will say, "I will use just 1/4 of my account to trade." Of course, one trade of -50 pips will stun a new trader. As you know, new traders come with a dream... not the belief that they will get hammered their first trade. Now that they have just $250 left in their account... they will actually gamble that last half to try and get the $250 they had just lost.

However, if leverage for the newbie was just 20:1, 10:1... they could in fact say "I will use all my account." Their first trade they would still lose -50pips, however, they would be sitting on $450-$475 account balance and would still be able to maintain that dream they had. This would also be a learning experience for them ... instead of a devestating blow to their hopes.

Now, a veteran trader would get that 400:1 account and simply say "I will trade 5% of my account balance to start." If he loses that same 50 pips, he will be in roughly the same position as the newbie with 20:1.

I am just trying to give a perspective here. I have spoken with enough of my peers to know that they were seriously thrown off by the leverage deal. They literally had no idea that they would get hit so hard. Traders that know what is going on have nothing to fear of high leverage.

So new traders... trade micro lots... not minis. Don't send in $500 to a broker that lets you trade minimum $1/pips. Your dream not only will last longer, it may just last long enough to actually come true.
For the last time, it does not matter if you have only $100 in your FX account and open a 100:1 leverage position but intend to wire a total of $50,000 to your forex account over the years or if you open a forex account with $50,000 immmediately and "only" open a 100:1 position with $100 margin money.

Most traders will say "Hey the first option is VERY BAD, you are way overleveraged" while in the second option they will clap and say "Wow, very conservative move, good trading decision!".

In reality, BOTH trading decisions are IDENTICAL and won't make a damn difference in your trading results/profits, this is what I am trying to explain people.
  • #27
  • Mar 21, 2007 6:51pm Mar 21, 2007 6:51pm
Quoting FXTerminator
For the last time, it does not matter if you have only $100 in your FX account and open a 100:1 leverage position but intend to wire a total of $50,000 to your forex account over the years or if you open a forex account with $50,000 immmediately and "only" open a 100:1 position with $100 margin money.

Most traders will say "Hey the first option is VERY BAD, you are way overleveraged" while in the second option they will clap and say "Wow, very conservative move, good trading decision!".

In reality, BOTH trading decisions are IDENTICAL and won't make a damn difference in your trading results/profits, this is what I am trying to explain people.
Was this in response to me? I don't follow if it is. All I am saying in my post is that there are people that open an account with $500 and that is simply all they can possibly afford. They will never ever send in 50k or anything of the sort. If you mix that immediate handicap with the fact that they have 400:1 leverage, they will be in a lot of trouble. You don't agree with this I suppose?

The original post was asking the question as to whether high leverage is bad. It is if you are a newbie that really has little concept of what is going on. If you took that high leverage away and made them trade 20:1, 10:1 ... there would be a lot of people still clawing their way through the market. These individuals may have actually made something of themselves because they had to actually trade longer. This as opposed to simply gambling a couple trades.

I have no debate as to the structure of an account and its effect on leverage. All I know is ... if an account has a $0 balance ... it won't be trading much anymore.
The market is my nation. Traders, my family. Hello, brothers and sisters!
  • #28
  • Mar 21, 2007 7:56pm Mar 21, 2007 7:56pm
Quoting FXTerminator
I am already familiar with the Kelly formula even though I don't use it at all in my trading. I use the much, much superior Fixed Ratio position sizing as described by R. Jones.

That's said Kelly's definition of leverage has of course nothing to do with FX, we are simply playing with words here.
i almost died lauging when i read this. not because its wrong or anything.

its just funny!
  • #29
  • Mar 21, 2007 11:00pm Mar 21, 2007 11:00pm
Quoting FXTerminator
For the last time, it does not matter if you have only $100 in your FX account and open a 100:1 leverage position but intend to wire a total of $50,000 to your forex account over the years or if you open a forex account with $50,000 immmediately and "only" open a 100:1 position with $100 margin money.
In your example - the leverage used in the second part is not the same as the leverage used in the first part. But lets assume that it is. 100:1 leverage position on $100 account will allow you to trade 1 10K lot. If the market moves 1% against you, you will have killed the account. Now lets say that it doesn't and you double your money instead. You now have $200.00 - if you use 100:1 leverage and trade 2 10K lots - a 1% move against you and again your account is at zero. A 1% move in your favor will double you up again. The point is - if you utilize the full amount of leverage available to you, you will always risk your whole account on any 1% move against you. This is true wether you have a $100 account or a 50K account.

That is all assuming you are utilising the maximum leverage available to you which was what the discussion was originally about. What you are implying here is that wether or not you have $100 or 50K you are still only trading 1 lot. This is not as bad as the first case because at least if you double your money a couple of times by the fifth trade you will already be using 25:1 leverage as opposed to 100:1 - still high but much more manageable. And yes at this point it doesn't matter if you deposit your 50K now or later since you are never scaling up or down(although an opportunity may pass you by while waiting to fund the account). In the bill gates example as in all of your examples, you imply using all of the leverage available to you, in which case 100: leverage utilisation is just plain suicidal. That would translate to trading 500 10K lots with 50K. Again a 1% move against you and you are finished - an eventual certainty in that scenario.

Dont take it to heart though, I know you had good intentions all along and I apologize for any offense I may have made. I really don't think you are stupid either, special is more the word.

good day
Man who scratches ass should not bite fingernails
  • #30
  • Mar 21, 2007 11:47pm Mar 21, 2007 11:47pm
Folks,

I think we're getting caught up here in semantics.

Both FXT and the rest of you are all correct about leverage. We're arguing about the difference between POTENTIAL leverage and KINETIC leverage...akin to potential and kinetic energy.

FXT is simply describing POTENTIAL leverage...in which, to his point, I'm in complete agreement. The blanket statement that "400:1 leverage from a broker is bad" is not necessarily a true statement.

What Faure and the rest of you are describing is what I'm going to refer to KINETIC or actual leverage, which is also very important. Kinetic leverage refers to the original size of your portfolio (or trade size) to your original equity balance. This is very important for newbies to understand because sometimes, you can't really control your POTENTIAL leverage (case in point, MBT doesn't allow you to adjust your potential leverage...it's 100:1 and that's it).

You guys are just bickering about who's semantics are better and it's becoming just a little mundane. For those of us who can see it both ways, let's move on, otherwise, I'm thinking ya'll will just have to agree to disagree, because everyone is just pumping up the rhetoric when the substance has already been on display since the first 6 or 7 posts.

StockJay was the only one who pointed out the psychological impact of having a high potential leverage...which is true. There will be temptation...but I'm in the camp that believes that you learn not to get burnt by touching the flame...and then adjust your risk accordingly. That's just how I live...Not that it doesn't help to keep the warning signs around...but I just think most newbies are going to make the mistakes that most newbies make because that's the natural progression of things. I'm not necessarily advocating higher potential leverage...I'm just not condemning those who have it for the sake of having it.
  • #31
  • Edited 1:58am Mar 22, 2007 1:47am | Edited 1:58am
Quoting Leugimp
In your example - the leverage used in the second part is not the same as the leverage used in the first part.
It IS the same exact leverage! The same !!

Going to a casino with $10,000 and betting "only" $100 on each roulette spin is the SAME EXACT DAMN THING as going to the casino and betting $100 each day, 100 consecutive days, when are you people going to get this through your head!!

In the first scenario traders/gamblers will applause and say :" This guy is good, he is "only" gambling/trading with an extremly <<low>> ?? leverage"

In the second case they will say: "This guy is crazy, he is betting "ALL" his money in one shot ("bad" high leverage), what a weirdo!"

In reality, both options are EXACTLY IDENTICAL.

IDENTICAL!!!

Sorry, but if some traders cannot understand that then there is absolutely nothing I can do.
  • #32
  • Mar 22, 2007 7:08am Mar 22, 2007 7:08am
FXterminator,

i think your way of thinking is one dimensional. Yea, both gamblers use $100 everytime they gamble. From that point of view, leverage doesn't really mean anything cause you look only in terms of monetary value, which is the same for both people

From the risk point of view, one trader only uses 2% of his equity every time he gambles while the other one uses 100%. Now we have a totally different scenario. In gambling, both of them will end up losing since they're playing roulette . But in the markets, it's about survival first then profits later. Not about looking strictly at the $ value

I guess people are thinking a step ahead of you by thinking of their risk attached to leverage rather than just the $100 or whatever it is the $ amount they are betting. And they assume that you're thinking of this too, but I guess you're not.

Miscommunication perhaps?
  • #33
  • Mar 22, 2007 1:36pm Mar 22, 2007 1:36pm
Quoting hilmy83
From the risk point of view, one trader only uses 1% of his equity every time he gambles while the other one uses 100%. Now we have a totally different scenario.
No, this is what you still don't understand Hilmy.

BOTH traders/gamblers are using only 1% of their balance on every trade/bet.

In the first case, gambler # 1 has $10,000 in his pocket and gambles "only" $100 on each roulette spin. So his allocating 1% of this bankroll to each bet.

In the second case, gambler #1 has only $100 total in his pocket and bets $100 at the roulette table.

Ok, now it seems that gambler #2 is betting 100% of his bankroll, BUT if he intends to come back every day for the next 100 days and bet another $100 each time then gambler too is ALSO allocating 1% of his bankroll to each bet, even though it seems that he is betting 100% of this bankroll on each bet.

Same thing with forex, depositing $10,000 all at once and betting $100 on each trade is the SAME EXACT THING than betting $100 (with only $100 trading balance) 100 consecutives days (you simply wire another $100 to your FX account, as needed), even though in the second case it seems that I am trading with "way too much" leverage.

Get it know my friend?
  • #34
  • Mar 22, 2007 1:50pm Mar 22, 2007 1:50pm
Quoting FXTerminator
Same thing with forex, depositing $10,000 all at once and betting $100 on each trade is the SAME EXACT THING than betting $100 (with only $100 trading balance) 100 consecutives days (you simply wire another $100 to your FX account, as needed), even though in the second case it seems that I am trading with "way too much" leverage.
Why would anyone care about this exactly? Are you trying to justify risking your entire account?
  • #35
  • Mar 22, 2007 2:36pm Mar 22, 2007 2:36pm
Quoting Darkstar
Why would anyone care about this exactly? Are you trying to justify risking your entire account?
How do you define "entire account" exactly?

If a trader is poor and has only $100 to risk on FX (and ONLY $100 and no more) and he risks the whole thing on one trade now that's gambling not trading and it's extremely bad, I agree 100%.

Now if the trader has $100 in his FX account but has a good job and intend to wire $1000 each month (WHEN NEEDED and only when needed) to his FX account, then it does not matter he is bets the whole $100 with a 400:1 leverage or 4000:1 leverage, it won't make a damn difference in his trading results/profits.

In fact this is exactly what I did 5 years, when I started trading on the forex (I traded the S&P 500 futures before). I opened my account with exactly $100 and opened a 200:1 leverage trade. My brother saw this and told me I was crazy to do that, "way too much leverage" he said.

Of course it seems that way at first glance. What he did know of course is that I had over $50,000 to allocate to the forex market, but $100 at a time when and IF needed.

But hey just try it, open two mini demo accounts.

Let's assume that mini-account 1 gives you $50,000 to play with but account #2 gives you only $100 to trade with.

Ok, place your trades normally in both accounts and bet only $100 each time. Of course if you lose $100 (account # 2, leverage used 100:1) just open another mini demo account and repeat this operation as many times as needed.

After 1000 trades like this, you will notice that you have the SAME EXACT profits in both accounts, not a penny less, even though you are allocating 100% of your money to each trade in account #2 and "only" 0.0002% of your money in account #1!!!

This is what most traders have a hard undertanding.
  • #36
  • Mar 22, 2007 2:58pm Mar 22, 2007 2:58pm
Quoting FXTerminator
How do you define "entire account" exactly?

If a trader is poor and has only $100 to risk on FX (and ONLY $100 and no more) and he risks the whole thing on one trade now that's gambling not trading and it's extremely bad, I agree 100%.

Now if the trader has $100 in his FX account but has a good job and intend to wire $1000 each month (WHEN NEEDED and only when needed) to his FX account, then it does not matter he is bets the whole $100 with a 400:1 leverage or 4000:1 leverage, it won't make a damn difference in his trading results/profits.

In fact this is exactly what I did 5 years, when I started trading on the forex (I traded the S&P 500 futures before). I opened my account with exactly $100 and opened a 200:1 leverage trade. My brother saw this and told me I was crazy to do that, "way too much leverage" he said.

Of course it seems that way at first glance. What he did know of course is that I had over $50,000 to allocate to the forex market, but $100 at a time when and IF needed.

But hey just try it, open two mini demo accounts.

Let's assume that mini-account 1 gives you $50,000 to play with but account #2 gives you only $100 to trade with.

Ok, place your trades normally in both accounts and bet only $100 each time. Of course if you lose $100 (account # 2, leverage used 100:1) just open another mini demo account and repeat this operation as many times as needed.

After 1000 trades like this, you will notice that you have the SAME EXACT profits in both accounts, not a penny less, even though you are allocating 100% of your money to each trade in account #2 and "only" 0.0002% of your money in account #1!!!

This is what most traders have a hard undertanding.
Great, so what? What are we learning?
  • #37
  • Mar 22, 2007 3:02pm Mar 22, 2007 3:02pm
Quoting Darkstar
Great, so what? What are we learning?
exactly nothing.
  • #38
  • Mar 22, 2007 3:09pm Mar 22, 2007 3:09pm
Quoting FXTerminator
How do you define "entire account" exactly?

If a trader is poor and has only $100 to risk on FX (and ONLY $100 and no more) and he risks the whole thing on one trade now that's gambling not trading and it's extremely bad, I agree 100%.

Now if the trader has $100 in his FX account but has a good job and intend to wire $1000 each month (WHEN NEEDED and only when needed) to his FX account, then it does not matter he is bets the whole $100 with a 400:1 leverage or 4000:1 leverage, it won't make a damn difference in his trading results/profits.

In fact this is exactly what I did 5 years, when I started trading on the forex (I traded the S&P 500 futures before). I opened my account with exactly $100 and opened a 200:1 leverage trade. My brother saw this and told me I was crazy to do that, "way too much leverage" he said.

Of course it seems that way at first glance. What he did know of course is that I had over $50,000 to allocate to the forex market, but $100 at a time when and IF needed.

But hey just try it, open two mini demo accounts.

Let's assume that mini-account 1 gives you $50,000 to play with but account #2 gives you only $100 to trade with.

Ok, place your trades normally in both accounts and bet only $100 each time. Of course if you lose $100 (account # 2, leverage used 100:1) just open another mini demo account and repeat this operation as many times as needed.

After 1000 trades like this, you will notice that you have the SAME EXACT profits in both accounts, not a penny less, even though you are allocating 100% of your money to each trade in account #2 and "only" 0.0002% of your money in account #1!!!

This is what most traders have a hard undertanding.
Let me see if I understand this correctly...

You are saying we should (if we have $1000 to spend on an account) only "wire" $100 at a time? So instead of incurring 1 bank wire fee, we could incur up to 10 bank wire fees? This would mean that you are automatically down $25 (25%) per deposit you make!

Sure, this concept could work, but why recommend it if it places the odds against you?
  • #39
  • Mar 22, 2007 3:14pm Mar 22, 2007 3:14pm
Quoting Darkstar
Great, so what? What are we learning?
It should be extremely obvious by now darkstart: this so called "high-leverage-is-bad" myth is simply that, a myth, as the preceding examples show.
  • #40
  • Mar 22, 2007 3:20pm Mar 22, 2007 3:20pm
Quoting hidethereal
Let me see if I understand this correctly...

You are saying we should (if we have $1000 to spend on an account) only "wire" $100 at a time?
Did I say that Hidethereal? :

By the way, funding/depositing money (to your FX account) by credit card costs nothing, zero, there are no fees involved.
0 traders viewing now