Some general observations:
1. The financial markets are a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest industry. In the main, it's a case of making money by whatever means are possible. Br0kers and market makers gain risk free income by merely clipping the ticket on every trade. Vendors sell systems, signals, education, a lot of which is of dubious quality. Prices are manipulated by banks and institutions, to whatever extent their size and influence allows them to get away with it, a lot of which is at the expense of the little guy. Bull and bear squeezes and traps are set; stoplosses get gunned down in the heavyweights' quest for liquidity; traders get their shirts handed to them by unprecedented central bank actions (January 15 was a recent example). And so on. The harsh reality is that retail traders are, by their own choice, small fish swimming among the predatory sharks. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
2. Survival has always been about getting, and exploiting, quality info earlier than the herd. If you're a technical trader, you need to not only find the genuine moves, but also both enter them, and bank your profit, before the move dissipates. If you're a fundamentalist who trades economic release data, you need to exploit data inequities before they become 'priced in'. Whatever the modus operandi, it is always the smart money that acts before, and at the expense of, the dumb money.
3. What is ethical -- let alone legal -- or not is debatable, and I would dare to suggest, arbitrary. For example, why are pyramid schemes illegal (in many countries) while casinos and lotteries are not? All pander equally to the get-rich-quick yearning in human nature, and the 'average' punter loses money in all of them. And overriding all of this is the question as to what extent governments and authorities should be allowed to intervene, creating a progression toward a 'nanny state', to save gullible laypeople from their own greed, laziness and prideful ignorance. Heck, you could arguably put retail forex into that category as, given enough time, the vast majority inevitably lose. As an entrepreneur, I'm personally against excessive government legislation, but I nonetheless understand the social outcry for a more humanitarian and egalitarian world. The question as to where lines should be drawn will always remain a subjective and contentious issue.
1. The financial markets are a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest industry. In the main, it's a case of making money by whatever means are possible. Br0kers and market makers gain risk free income by merely clipping the ticket on every trade. Vendors sell systems, signals, education, a lot of which is of dubious quality. Prices are manipulated by banks and institutions, to whatever extent their size and influence allows them to get away with it, a lot of which is at the expense of the little guy. Bull and bear squeezes and traps are set; stoplosses get gunned down in the heavyweights' quest for liquidity; traders get their shirts handed to them by unprecedented central bank actions (January 15 was a recent example). And so on. The harsh reality is that retail traders are, by their own choice, small fish swimming among the predatory sharks. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
2. Survival has always been about getting, and exploiting, quality info earlier than the herd. If you're a technical trader, you need to not only find the genuine moves, but also both enter them, and bank your profit, before the move dissipates. If you're a fundamentalist who trades economic release data, you need to exploit data inequities before they become 'priced in'. Whatever the modus operandi, it is always the smart money that acts before, and at the expense of, the dumb money.
3. What is ethical -- let alone legal -- or not is debatable, and I would dare to suggest, arbitrary. For example, why are pyramid schemes illegal (in many countries) while casinos and lotteries are not? All pander equally to the get-rich-quick yearning in human nature, and the 'average' punter loses money in all of them. And overriding all of this is the question as to what extent governments and authorities should be allowed to intervene, creating a progression toward a 'nanny state', to save gullible laypeople from their own greed, laziness and prideful ignorance. Heck, you could arguably put retail forex into that category as, given enough time, the vast majority inevitably lose. As an entrepreneur, I'm personally against excessive government legislation, but I nonetheless understand the social outcry for a more humanitarian and egalitarian world. The question as to where lines should be drawn will always remain a subjective and contentious issue.
1
