EURUSD

agree with you, bro i have my first TP at 92 the second at 53

Run baby, run!

All US futures in red Big time... SO expect some help from US to push this bitch down. ECB's Conf. is helping USD so far... They not asking about the PIIGS, only about Greece (the G in PIIGS)

This is just a total finance scam. 2 worse world bankrupt currencies

USD, JPY running up against everything. NO jobs, economy suck

full of Debt and it's OK

I made few scalps shorts on EU and EJ, but still.

It is OK, and other places it's NOT OK, thats why USD is wining in "who is doing worse"

but sometimes ichimoku can be your friend ->

it was a usd / cad buy stop
it hovered at about minus 30 pips for about 3 hours then just now it went up to 20 pips to the good - looks like cad went rad

Good Morning!

Why is eu not following gold?? Perhaps not ready just yet. 3750 might be on hold until next week. Placed sell limit order at 3850 to add to my open position if we get a rise.

Are you saying GOLD/SILVER not ok and USD better?

Holy crap! Didnt look at gold! Wow!!!

Tks, I'll try them and then I'll tell you. By now my new friends are telling me to go short in 4H chart!! So far, we're thinking alike LOL Good trading mate!

But where would be the reversal point ?

If gold is correct we'll see EU well into the 3700's today.

I'm getting news that there are lots of EURO flows (buy stops mainly), overall direction is DOWN, plus Wall ST in big red now at open, which means lots of USD strength to come, it just opened so shorts will be in green for at least 4-6 hours and possibly more on timeline

Thank god no more scalping for me, thats all i did all night, got upto 50 pips then droped to 39, and now riding this bad bitch

just for you

Look at 1h gold, SWEET, shit is droppin fast

Correct? You can buy blind here. It's just pure manipulation.

And doesn't look EUR will go below 1.38 either.

What idiot going to sell Gold, Not me for sure.

Check this out, will submit in another post.

Looking at gold chart we should expect USD getting stonger. In last half an hour it lost ground against most of the other currencies while gold's still falling. I suspect there's no logic behind this...now, what would you think about this as an experienced trader you are???

" LONDON (Dow Jones)--The US budget plans, presented earlier this week, have had a mixed reception.

While President Obama's intention to maintain a fiscally expansive stance for at least one year more has been applauded in some Congressional circles, there is widespread concern at the large numbers now attaching to medium-term forecasts of US federal deficits and debt.

At no stage in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s ten-year projection is the federal deficit expected to fall below 3.6% of GDP. The federal debt is seen more than doubling by 2019 from its $11.8trn level in September 2009.

These outcomes take account of the tight restraint the US Administration plans to exercise over discretionary non-defence spending. The problem is that defence spending constituted as much as 18.8% of total federal budget outlays (on-budget and off-budget) in FY2009.

Medicare, income security, social security and veterans' benefits, the so-called entitlements, together made up a further 49.5% of the total, while federal interest payments absorbed 5.3% of outlays (in a year when Treasury bill rates were close to zero). This means that any US Administration seeking to tackle the fiscal problem through cuts in discretionary spending items has to work on a very narrow range of potential targets, which amount, in aggregate, to scarcely more than 25% of federal expenditure.

When the deficit starts out at some 40% of outlays, as in FY2009, the complete elimination of discretionary spending would not be sufficient on its own to bring the federal budget back to balance.

The OMB would gain some help in shrinking the deficit from a revival in economic growth. The key questions are how much help and how much growth.

Between FY1992 and FY2000, the era of the technology boom in the US economy, the federal government's budgetary position swung from a deficit equivalent to 4.7% of GDP to a surplus of 2.4% of GDP. Economic growth was not the only factor contributing to this benign development; there was a consensus in the Administration and Congress in favour of fiscal restraint, with budgetary rules in place to back up such resolve.

Nevertheless, there can be no doubting the influence of cyclical factors, seeing that by FY2002 the federal government was back in deficit to the tune of 1.5% of GDP. If the US economy were to show a strong recovery, it could deliver less worrisome budget figures than those Mr Obama published this week.

However, the OMB projection already assumes an average growth rate in real GDP of 3.4% for the ten years from 2010. That would be stronger than the 3.0% annual average growth rate recorded in the ten years to 2007. It seems to take no account of the longer-term impact of the financial crisis on the US economy's growth potential. On balance, then, it seems economic conditions are more likely to militate against, than in favour of, a fiscal outcome better than the OMB is projecting.

The hope might be that defence spending could be reduced by more than the Administration is assuming. However, budget plans already foresee a decline in this category of spending, as a proportion of total outlays, from 19.8% in FY2011 to 15.6% by FY 2015.

This forecast appears to assume a smooth progression of events in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Another way of reducing the deficit would be to attack the entitlement programmes. But Mr Obama does not appear ready to lead an assault on welfare spending and, in any case, that would be a tough strategy to adopt when there is a widespread perception among the 'middle classes' in the USA that it is the wealthy who have just carried out a daring raid on the public coffers.

Mr Obama responded to this feeling in his Budget Message when he said that on the day his Administration took office, 'we faced an additional $7.5trn in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program'. If the financial markets demand that the US federal government take action to cut its deficit, the response is more likely to take the form of tax increases than spending cuts.

If the credit rating agencies' sovereign ratings mean anything at all, weak fiscal indicators ought surely to have some bearing on them. Yet there are no grounds for supposing the US Treasury would be any more likely to default on its interest and principal payments, even should its debt double. After all, the payments are due to be made in dollars and the US Treasury can print as many dollars as it likes.

There is no question the US government will be in a position to discharge its legal obligations to investors. There need be no rise in default risk, however large the debt grows.

All the same, from an investor's viewpoint, the prospective worsening in US federal finances might render US Treasury securities an unreliable store of value.

But are sovereign credit ratings really meant to serve as investment recommendations? The rating agencies have never made that claim. Even so, there are sovereign credits they have put on single-A ratings that are no more likely than the USA to default in legal terms.

The risk of default arises in two situations. These are, first, where there is regime change and the new government repudiates the debts of its predecessors and, secondly, where a government borrows in foreign currencies without having foreign-currency assets to back its debts. The euro zone countries are in a special position because, strictly speaking, all their borrowings are in foreign currency; they do not have national currencies that they can print at will to meet their creditors' demands.

Further, since the rating agencies would treat as default rather than debt conversion the redenomination of euro debt in a new national currency, were a member-state to leave the euro zone, there is a dimension of risk attaching to euro zone sovereign debt that is not present in relation to securities of other governments.

Even so, just as the absence of default risk does not necessarily make a government security a good investment, the presence of such risk does not make it a bad investment. "

Guys- what are your thoughts on a pullback area number before another trip south?

just below 1.04xx