Whats really moving the market today? | Page 14 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

What does it mean to trade whats moving? 10 replies

The Really Really Boring Forex System 97 replies

Whats your favorite Low Volatility pair? 5 replies

whats up with the market today? 3 replies

Default Bounds, whats this 3 replies

Attachments: Whats really moving the market today?
Exit Attachments

Whats really moving the market today?

  • #261
  • Jun 10, 2011 4:07am Jun 10, 2011 4:07am
Quoting dddd
Hey, lumesh, stop beating up mr. bug.

(you are entitled to your opinion, of course. ) I thorougly enjoy your back and forth.

Crybabies leave.
haha - yeah bug ya big cry baby

lol It's cool I understand what bugs saying there. I sort of felt obligated to write things because he was contributing so much, seeing as I made the thread n all. After a while I was a bit like you... Didn't want to say any thing wrong so I just left it to our resident smarty pants bug...

I might kick things off again if I'm feeling up to it. I hope people feel free to post what they want, that's what it's all about although I should probably take my own advice

Onwards and upwards
Time hides Nothing
  • #262
  • Jun 10, 2011 6:41am Jun 10, 2011 6:41am
Quoting CindyXXXX
haha - yeah bug ya big cry baby

lol It's cool I understand what bugs saying there. I sort of felt obligated to write things because he was contributing so much, seeing as I made the thread n all. After a while I was a bit like you... Didn't want to say any thing wrong so I just left it to our resident smarty pants bug...

I might kick things off again if I'm feeling up to it. I hope people feel free to post what they want, that's what it's all about although I should probably take my own advice
Onwards and upwards
Creating a thread is easy. Things get a little complicated when continous value needs to be created in order to keep things going. Thread creator, as the "supposed" leader, should think hardly about what is the value that he/she is creating. If there isn't any then it's logical to assume that the thread depends on the value that other participants create.

Now, any value creation needs motivation. Different people have different motivations. Some want appreciation, some want a healthy debate, a challenge so to speak. Appreciation is got from those who feel they are less knowledgeable and debates are created by those who feel the need to counter the initial poster. So, now you can see why all of this cries out for the active participation from everybody.

If you consider the above then maybe you now realize why arguments like "Didn't want to say any thing wrong so I just left it to our resident smarty pants bug" are rather stupid.

Value is created EVEN if you post your "stupid" questions.

The problem here was that Bug was the most active in terms of posting. However, many have probably found it hard to extract the value they needed from those posts cause a lot of them were merely consolidations of prevailing news/stories. Couple that with the intriquing attitude of his which, i'd guess, make it a bit difficult mentally to attract a lot of other members to give their opinions without being afraid of getting the "do all a favour and pick up a book on macro economics" statement
  • #263
  • Jun 10, 2011 7:03am Jun 10, 2011 7:03am
Maybe stupid but just being honest... It wasn't actually an argument I was just stating how I felt about the whole thing.

My original intention for the thread was to just chat about whats happening in the market today but it seems even that is too hard to do without constant ego BS and arguments, in the end I realized why there aren't any other threads like this, actually theres probably many but they likely suffered the same fate.,
Time hides Nothing
  • #264
  • Jun 10, 2011 8:01am Jun 10, 2011 8:01am
Quoting CindyXXXX
Maybe stupid but just being honest... It wasn't actually an argument I was just stating how I felt about the whole thing.
You probably misunderstood me. I was saying that it is OK and very welcomed to post questions/opinions EVEN if you think they are stupid. Cause then you keep things going. If you withdraw from the activity and just focus on reading then the thread WILL suffer. Don't hesitate, if you want to ask something then go ahead. Your questions can very well lead to new ideas and thoughts.
If you get caught into someone elses ego BS response then you can simply remind him of that or deny him to participate in your thread (i think it is possible).


Quoting CindyXXXX
... in the end I realized why there aren't any other threads like this, actually theres probably many but they likely suffered the same fate.,
Absolutely, in fact most threads that are alive are actively pursued by the creators. Moreover, the creators are well respected for a variety of reasons starting from the post and voucher count and up to what he/she actually has to say which means that they create threads about subjects that they know about and thus comfortable to talk about. It's all about credibility. Why do you think all the order flow threads are still active ? Because the credibility Darkstar has. So, when he posts, the thread gets active, when he withdraws his activity the thread dies. It's funny actually, cause you can see that there has been many order flow threads created in the past 6 months and all of them are basically the same. People just move from one thread to another and all of them WILL die without the support from the most credible.
  • #265
  • Jun 10, 2011 8:24am Jun 10, 2011 8:24am
True... Very true
Time hides Nothing
  • #266
  • Jun 10, 2011 9:43am Jun 10, 2011 9:43am
dddd
I don't need you to be on the lookout for me. You're not my mom.
And posting 'stupid' stuff is all fine as long as it's on topic and the intent is not to spark a ranting spree. How do you think people learn anything? They ask stupid questions and make embarrassing statements. I'm not particularly proud of the my earlier posts on this forum, but go back to my very first posts and look what I wrote. You could do the same thing with 10+ voucher users and you'll soon realize that a lot people here didn't know anything about trading when they came here.

Cindy
Cry baby? Really? I left your thread because there wasn't enough participation, that's all. I'm not upset, angry, sad or whatever. I just found the price of posting this info in terms of time spent was larger than what I received in return many times over. That's all.

Smarty pants?
Well, maybe. But I'd say this is more of a viewpoint issue. To me a lot of things about the way economic developments influence exchange rates are self evident. People who are very new to this business or people whose macroeconomic education hasn't got past the 'beginner' level may think that I'm being a smarty-pants and see me as flashing my ego, especially in cases when I direct them to a book (Wikipedia is a good alternative, I don't remember whether I've mentioned this before, but here it is). I've been reading up on financial markets since I was 15 or so. I've been reading up on 'proper' academic texts as well and the combination of the two means that I know quite a bit (call this an egotrip, I don't care) about how inflation, exchange rates etc are interlinked. The reason I often tell people to pick up a book is because in my experience that's the fastest route to understanding these things. You can try and make sense of it by writing down what kind of reaction the market displayed on a given fundamental news release or by following the reasoning of Bloomberg/Reuters et al. articles but in the end you still need to pick up a book and read the dry theory. Yes, the theories are incomplete and don't give you all the answers. Worse still, text book and uni class examples are often limited by 'ceteris paribus' (ceteris is the jargon that economists use to denote a situation where one variable changes but others are held constant. This is for ease of analysis, we all know that in the real world there is oftentimes no such thing as ceteris paribus). In conclusion I'd say you guys need to lighten up a little. I'm not a know-it-all-guy nor do I want to be. I just have a working knowledge of certain things and I'm not shy about expressing that. I'm also not shy about telling people to read books when, viewed from my viewpoint, the person in question has misunderstood some basic principles. In these cases it is often better to refer a person to a book rather start explaining everything here.
If you don't risk, you don't ever have to lose.
  • #267
  • Jun 10, 2011 9:50am Jun 10, 2011 9:50am
was just a light hearted joke I hope I didn't offend. Honestly

The ego thing was more about the fights that happen on every thread in this forum wasn't pointing anyone out in particular

I think I may have come accross the wrong way I was seriously just having a casual joke there was no attitude intended whatsoever just hope you know that. And thanks for all the work you did in this thread on a more serious note, lumesh as well
Time hides Nothing
  • #268
  • Jun 10, 2011 9:52am Jun 10, 2011 9:52am
Quoting lumesh
Creating a thread is easy. Things get a little complicated when continous value needs to be created in order to keep things going. Thread creator, as the "supposed" leader, should think hardly about what is the value that he/she is creating. If there isn't any then it's logical to assume that the thread depends on the value that other participants create.

Now, any value creation needs motivation. Different people have different motivations. Some want appreciation, some want a healthy debate, a challenge so to speak. Appreciation is got from...

There is nothing wrong with holding back one's tongue if you dont have anything useful to say. There are few things as annoying as a garrulous person with stupid comments. It has no value.

I was reading the thread from the begining and i must say that i agree with bug on one thing: the demand for crude has been going up. Why? Population increase= consumption increase. Crude is used to make a wide range of things, from plastics(from computer covers, bags, shoes, toothbrushes, water bottle, pen,etc ) to various organic components derived from catalytic cracking to the fuel used by automobiles.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...-refining2.htm
  • #269
  • Jun 10, 2011 10:18am Jun 10, 2011 10:18am
Quoting dddd
I was reading the thread from the begining and i must say that i agree with bug on one thing: the demand for crude has been going up. Why? Population increase= consumption increase.
And this is exactly the kind of example I need to explain why I encourage people to read books (in this case a visit to IEA's website would be better). Supply and demand figures for oil are released by various agencies who keep track of such things. Demographics has little to do with this. If there was a direct correlation between the two (R2 over 0.7) we would've seen quite a drop in world population during the recession. We didn't.

The demand for crude goes up when the benefits from using an additional barrel of crude outweigh the costs. Supply and demand figures are available from IEA and other agencies which means that when you are talking about an increase in demand, you absolutely have to go to the source, not rely on some folksy interpretation between population and oil demand.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with holding back one's tongue if you dont have anything useful to say. There are few things as annoying as a garrulous person with stupid comments. It has no value.
Did these three sentences add value? Seriously, there's no need to defend me and/or to defame lumesh or anyone else on this forum. Take a chill pill or somethin'. Besides, whatever disagreements we had in the end we both agreed to let it rest. You don't need to dig up old stuff. Just move on.

Quote
was just a light hearted joke I hope I didn't offend. Honestly
Ya sure about that?
I wasn't offended, Cindy. I just needed to address that in case you were serious and to further emphasize that I stopped posting the info not because I was offended or because lumesh was attacking me (that's what dddd seems to be thinking, haven't got the slightest idea why he thinks so. I thought we were discussing things, me and lumesh that is, perhaps not in the politest of manners for which I'm sorry, but I don't think there were signs of maliciousness).
If you don't risk, you don't ever have to lose.
  • #270
  • Jun 10, 2011 10:26am Jun 10, 2011 10:26am
So sure! Sometimes this place does my head in... If you knew me in real life you would no I was just joking I guess it's hard to gauge true expession through binary bits = )

I'm an Aussie man taking the piss is a past tine what can I say
Time hides Nothing
  • #271
  • Jun 10, 2011 2:06pm Jun 10, 2011 2:06pm
Quoting bug
And this is exactly the kind of example I need to explain why I encourage people to read books (in this case a visit to IEA's website would be better). Supply and demand figures for oil are released by various agencies who keep track of such things. Demographics has little to do with this.
So you are saying population explosion does not affect demand for oil in an industrialized world? Population increase affects the need for oil or raw material of any kind in an industrialized society. Be it oil or steel or rubber.The world oil consumption 20 years ago is different from it what it is now. Heck, the world oil consumption 10 years ago is lower than it is today.

The world has added a billion people in roughly the last 10 years.

Look at the oil consumption in 2001
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...pita&date=2001
VERSUS
oil consumption in 2007
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...pita&date=2007

AND THAT IS JUST 6 YEARS DIFFERENCE!

The world population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

increasing population needs increasing energy.


Quoting bug

If there was a direct correlation between the two (R2 over 0.7) we would've seen quite a drop in world population during the recession. We didn't.
No offense, that statement showed a misguided understanding of cause-and-effect. There is increase in oil consumption because the world needs more energy due to population growth. That may or may not affect the price of oil or commodities. Increase consumption does not necessarily equate to increase in price of oil. Why? New efficient technologies for detecting, extracting, and converting raw materials and economy of scale involved. Your erred conclusion from my statement is that if there is a drop in commodities prices or oil prices, that means that population drops. Or to put it another way: that increase in population necessarily means increase in price of commodities. Not at all. Increased population creates increase in demand for raw commodities, that doesnt necessarily mean the price of those commodities will go up. Simply because of innovative technologies. It is far costlier to produce a barrel of oil in the early 1800s than to produce it in the 2000s. Technology makes the difference. Despite the fact that demand has gone up due to increasing population dependency on oil as a source of energy. You couldnt be more wrong: while increase in population creates demands for raw materials, Technology plays a major role in determining the price of that commodity, because technology can severely drive down cost.

Quoting bug
The demand for crude goes up when the benefits from using an additional barrel of crude outweigh the costs.
Are you serious? Really? With all due respect you are merely parroting standard econ 101. Reality is a bit more messy. Crude oil has a low price elasticity of demand. People needs gasoline/petrol in their vehicle to commute; The varied synthetic products of crude oil are indispensable to modern life: from surgical products to medical implants to radio to etc. Please, enlighten me, what great alternative do we have for crude oil given all the various chemical derivatives that we've gotten from it. There is practically no alternative. In economics, when there is no alternative.......fill in the blank.
I mean seriously, you wrote that with a straight face "The demand for crude goes up when the benefits from using an additional barrel of crude outweigh the costs" what do you think oil is? bananas? Without oil, civilization collapses. End of story. The demand for crude oil is a function of the populace needs for energy(and the availability of alternatives). I also think you are not familiar with the chemistry of crude oil extraction and how in the earliest beginings it was extremely expensive to extract. But the myraid need for the product of crude oil forces technological innovations to make the extraction process more catalytically efficient. Necessity is the mother of invention . Crude oil is more important to modern society than chemotherapy is for a cancer patient. The demand for chemotherapy doesnt go up or down because the additional benefits from using an additional intravenous bag of chemotherapy outweigh the costs. The demand is cancer. The demand for oil is the demand for energy. An increasing population needs more energy. Oil is a good energy source. And chemotherapeutics are more elastic than oil

Quoting bug
Supply and demand figures are available from IEA and other agencies which means that when you are talking about an increase in demand, you absolutely have to go to the source, not rely on some folksy interpretation between population and oil demand.
Go to IEA website and look at the correlation between world population and energy consumption. The greater the world population the greater the need for energy, oil is the main source of energy. This is elementary.

Quoting bug
Did these three sentences add value?
Do you?

Quoting bug
Seriously, there's no need to defend me and/or to defame lumesh or anyone else on this forum. Take a chill pill or somethin'. Besides, whatever disagreements we had in the end we both agreed to let it rest. You don't need to dig up old stuff. Just move on.
Are you an accountant? You seems to have certain.......
  • #272
  • Jun 10, 2011 3:49pm Jun 10, 2011 3:49pm
This was indeed a good thread, and I'm sorry to see it have come down this road - pesky exams! However, I am thankful that CindyXXXX started it up, as it helped me find new ways to collect and analyze data. The news sources, the charts, the analysis - I learned from everything.

I can definitely understand where bug is coming from, as these things do take a hefty amount of time to prepare, and I'm beginning to appreciate more and more that time is a precious resource.

In any event, I'd like to say thanks to everyone for their contributions, paul1, lumesh, Louie, bug, CindyXXXX, ingmarforex and everyone else I can't remember off the top of my head.

Good trading,
xXTrizzleXx
  • #273
  • Jun 10, 2011 5:01pm Jun 10, 2011 5:01pm
People often think it is the traders that cause market movement in spot rates when it is central banks and banking institutions that cause the rise or fall in this market. Remember that folks when you trade. This is often the number one misconception of forex speculators and the reason why people lose money.
  • #274
  • Jun 12, 2011 6:49am Jun 12, 2011 6:49am
Quoting [Sniper]
People often think it is the traders that cause market movement in spot rates when it is central banks and banking institutions that cause the rise or fall in this market. Remember that folks when you trade. This is often the number one misconception of forex speculators and the reason why people lose money.
hmm...define "trader". If you're talking about retail traders like the members in the forums whose main objective is to speculate and try to make money then yes, they have little impact in terms of longer term DIRECTIONAL bias simply because most of their trading decisions are short term and technical-oriented. Don't misunderstand me, they ALSO have a sizeable impact in the marketplace in terms of LIQUIDITY distribution but mainly when being in the wrong side of the trade. "When you expect to win then someone has to lose".

Now, if you include investment banks, hedge funds, business hedgers into the "trader" category then i'll have to disagree with you. The main movers are the international portfolio flows that seek the highest net and "true" yield in the global marketplace and the international businesses that need to hedge their currency risk. Those hedgers use the services of your mentioned banking institutions to conduct their normal business. They ARE the traders. Banks themselves are just intermediaries who collect their commissions to provide THAT service for THOSE traders. As far as the CB's go, then i'm not sure about their DIRECT market moving impact. They impact the currency market through monetary policy, i would think.
  • #275
  • Jun 12, 2011 8:32am Jun 12, 2011 8:32am
Quoting lumesh
hmm...define "trader". If you're talking about retail traders like the members in the forums whose main objective is to speculate and try to make money then yes, they have little impact in terms of longer term DIRECTIONAL bias simply because most of their trading decisions are short term and technical-oriented. Don't misunderstand me, they ALSO have a sizeable impact in the marketplace in terms of LIQUIDITY distribution but mainly when being in the wrong side of the trade. "When you expect to win then someone has to lose".

Now, if you include...
Lumesh, when I'm talking about "trader", I'm talking about individual speculators and firms which trade currencies for the sole purpose of incurring profit. The ones you mentioned in your second paragraph are not traders, they are hedgers and facilitators which try to preserve the true value of their earnings (hence the term hedge) as well as well as help firms facilitate trade in the REAL economy in the international arena.

It is this group in the second paragraph that moves the market in spot rates. In fact, simple international trade between two countries affect spot rates themselves. I try to base my trade along this fact and ride along the trend and take what the market gives me. I don't day trade in forex spot rates, I simply ride the trend to earn profit. That's why I'm saying most traders often fail because they fail to grasp this simple point. Speculators can never move the market, it is those in the second group that does, which I was trying to say in the first post.
  • #276
  • Jun 12, 2011 8:45am Jun 12, 2011 8:45am
Quoting dddd
So you are saying population explosion does not affect demand for oil in an industrialized world? Population increase affects the need for oil or raw material of any kind in an industrialized society. Be it oil or steel or rubber.The world oil consumption 20 years ago is different from it what it is now. Heck, the world oil consumption 10 years ago is lower than it is today.

The world has added a billion people in roughly the last 10 years.

increasing population needs increasing energy.

As far as the REAL demand/supply works, then yes, population is definitely one factor that affects the need for oil. Not just oil. Food, water....everything.

However, as far as the PRICE of oil goes, the population impact is practically non-existent and that argument doesn't make you any money.


Quoting dddd
No offense, that statement showed a misguided understanding of cause-and-effect. There is increase in oil consumption because the world needs more energy due to population growth. That may or may not affect the price of oil or commodities. Increase consumption does not necessarily equate to increase in price of oil. Why? New efficient technologies for detecting, extracting, and converting raw materials and economy of scale involved. Your erred conclusion from my statement is that if there is a drop in commodities prices or oil prices, that means...

Absolutely, and now you can see why it is vital to consider the NET demand for oil where you factor all the technology and everything in up to the core need for the crude oil.


Quoting dddd
Are you serious? Really? With all due respect you are merely parroting standard econ 101. Reality is a bit more messy. Crude oil has a low price elasticity of demand. People needs gasoline/petrol in their vehicle to commute; The varied synthetic products of crude oil are indispensable to modern life: from surgical products to medical implants to radio to etc. Please, enlighten me, what great alternative do we have for crude oil given all the various chemical derivatives that we've gotten from it. There is practically no alternative. In economics,...

I think you may have misunderstood what Bug meant to say. It's just a classical economics saying and that's why it doesn't really mean anything. All what you are saying here is OK but you are missing the point because Bug didn't propose an argument with that.

It would be like saying: The demand for ANY product, service, raw material in the world goes up if the demander BENEFITS (whatever way) MORE from that product, service, raw material than it COSTS him to get it. Period.



All in all, I think it would be beneficial to both of you (and all of us, of course ) if we would debate about subjects that acutally move the PRICE of any instrument that we are trading. Isn't THAT the whole point of this thread ?

No population growth neither real NET demand for oil is having any major impact on the PRICE of oil. I have talked about why that is before in this very thread. You can either agree with me or not.
  • #277
  • Jun 12, 2011 4:26pm Jun 12, 2011 4:26pm
Quote
So you are saying population explosion does not affect demand for oil in an industrialized world? Population increase affects the need for oil or raw material of any kind in an industrialized society. Be it oil or steel or rubber.
I didn't say population growth didn't have any effect at all. What I said was demographics in itself isn't enough to explain the rise in consumption. You will find plenty of examples of countries where the population had decreased while oil consumption has increased.

Look, the point that I was trying to make is that population dynamics aren't enough to explain changes in oil consumption, at least not in the short run* which is what we as traders are interested in. Population dynamics are for investors. It is true that if the number of people increases, the demand for resources will go up, ceteris paribus. It is an inescapable fact. However, in the short run there are other things that are more important, including but not limited to economic policy, productivity growth (see Jevons paradox), the price of oil itself, capital investments, weather and mother nature in general, infrastructure development, the cost of energy alternatives, wage growth, government subsidies etc.

*It is my mistake that I didn't differentiate between short term and long term factors. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, I still maintain that demographics are not important in the short term.

Quote
Are you serious? Really? With all due respect you are merely parroting standard econ 101. Reality is a bit more messy. Crude oil has a low price elasticity of demand. People needs gasoline/petrol in their vehicle to commute; The varied synthetic products of crude oil are indispensable to modern life: from surgical products to medical implants to radio to etc.
You are just proving my point. The benefits from using an additional barrel of oil far outweigh the cost of alternatives and/or not using crude at all. Pharma, food, plastics, transport... they all depend on crude and most people would rather have the goods than the money. The growth in demand for oil only proves that.
Quote
Without oil, civilization collapses. End of story.
This is not news for me. Seriously. I've read extensively on the topic so let's just leave it at that. I don't think there is much to discuss here.

Quote
Are you an accountant?
I'm not an accountant although I do have to admit that it's a very interesting field.:nerd: Once you start reading up on Buffet, the financial crisis and off balance sheet transaction there's just no denying that accounting is interesting.
If you don't risk, you don't ever have to lose.
  • #278
  • Jun 13, 2011 8:58am Jun 13, 2011 8:58am
lumesh and bug,

reading your posts, i dont think there is really that big of a difference(if any) in our take on this.
  • #279
  • Jul 8, 2011 8:19am Jul 8, 2011 8:19am
At (1) on the attached EUR/USD chart - US employment data for Jun showed jobs grew by only 18k, up from 25k in May (revised from 54k) and below the market estimates that were in the 100-05k range. The Unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2%, up 9.1%. The jobs data has been a significant disappointment, especially after the stronger than anticipated ADP release on Thursday inspired an upward revision by many analysts. The market's reaction has been perplexing, but so far EUR/USD touched new lows and bounced, while USD/JPY has tumbled. There is talk that the bounce in EUR/USD was a reaction to the defence posed in front of 1.4200 by Asian sovereigns amongst others. M.B.

So this looked like it was bad for the USD but the EUR sold off before turning around and moving higher at (2).

Curious if anyone could help me understand the thought process behind the move down before the move up.

Thanks
Joe


http://i.imgur.com/u3T6g.jpg
  • #280
  • Jul 8, 2011 2:03pm Jul 8, 2011 2:03pm
Quoting joekurr
At (1) on the attached EUR/USD chart - US employment data for Jun showed jobs grew by only 18k, up from 25k in May (revised from 54k) and below the market estimates that were in the 100-05k range. The Unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2%, up 9.1%. The jobs data has been a significant disappointment, especially after the stronger than anticipated ADP release on Thursday inspired an upward revision by many analysts. The market's reaction has been perplexing, but so far EUR/USD touched new lows and bounced, while USD/JPY has tumbled. There is talk that...

completely agree with you but reason why market back down is to much sell orders so e/u back to normal ( bearish ) but we will see opening of next week what will happen i expect big gap
0 traders viewing now