Will forex ever end for retail traders like us | Page 5 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Will retail forex end soon? 18 replies

Will UK traders ever see this? 1 reply

Seems like sure bet to long euro until end of the year 0 replies

ECN's: Do they have "click & deal" platforms like retail firms? 8 replies

The greatest Forex questions ever asked 14 replies

Attachments: Will forex ever end for retail traders like us
Exit Attachments

Will forex ever end for retail traders like us

  • #81
  • Jan 8, 2016 12:58pm Jan 8, 2016 12:58pm
Quoting nubcake
{quote} That's a bit cheeky coming from the likes of you. You've been back here since you last posted in this thread, and you certainly don't behave like someone with better things to do with their miserable life.
"the likes of me" ?
I take offense to that remark.
I will have you know I am the only one, since - as we all know - just this web site alone is only animated by forex millionaires such as yourself or by members who know someone who have a cousin who met someone who said he is a forex millionaire ..
  • #82
  • Jan 8, 2016 11:06pm Jan 8, 2016 11:06pm
So many doom and gloomers here have no clue what they are talking about.
Retail forex isn't going away, nor is it going down to 1:1 leverage.

It is LEVERAGE ITSELF which allows the markets to remain liquid. LEVERAGE makes the world go round, literally.

Without it, global trade would grind to a halt.

Retail forex is bigger than ever, and it will remain that way.

50:1 leverage SHOULD be mandatory for everyone worldwide. Trading at 200:1 means 25 pips wipes you out.

Actually, 10:1 leverage should be mandatory, but the markets are liquid enough that orders will be filled even when the market moves 100 pips instantly (at least it will in EURUSD and most G10 pairs, apart from the EURCHF debacle.... nobody should ever trade a pegged pair..ever)

If the market moved more than 100 pips instantly, your order would be slipped and gapped, and you would owe your broker money as your balance would go negative (trading at 50:1).

Trading with more than 10:1 is ridiculous and MAY result in losses greater than deposits.

No big money trader will ever trade more than 10:1 leverage. Most of them use no more than 5:1 actually.

If you are using more than 10:1, you are gambling, you aren't using money management. Plain and simple.

Brokers in the USA had a panic attack and basically forced the regulators to NOT go to 10:1 leverage, even though that was the intent when they decided to move it down to 50:1. The fact of the matter is this. If you are using 50:1 leverage you will get a margin call after 100 pips of drawdown.

You don't need to trade that way. The TRUE reason for high leverage is NOT to gamble it all on one trade, the purpose is so that you don't need to keep very much of your total capital in a brokerage, but you can still trade AS IF all your capital was deposited at the broker.
Be hopeful in a winning position, and fearful in a losing position.
  • #83
  • Jan 8, 2016 11:13pm Jan 8, 2016 11:13pm
US lotteries will die before retail forex and futures trading (which means, never). Why? Because forex trading and futures trading are more profitable to the government than the lottery is. All these brokerages making 100s of millions in commissions per year and having to pay 50% to the US government. You really think the gov wants to eliminate that revenue?
Be hopeful in a winning position, and fearful in a losing position.
  • #84
  • Jan 8, 2016 11:22pm Jan 8, 2016 11:22pm
Quoting numbnuts
This place always reminds me of a spinal injuries ward in a hospital, where every patient has been told there is a 99% chance he will never walk again .... every patient decides that he will be that 1% who succeeds, even if he has no rational reason to think that. Mingary is one of the 99% who failed, but instead of going home and getting on with his life he spends his days wheeling himself around the ward telling all the other patients to give up, there is no hope .... even though occasionally one of them gets up and walks out .... he ignores that...
Exactly, with proper money management and knowing when price is cheap relative to momentum... one can make a living.

Anyone who says it's a casino doesn't know what they are talking about.
Be hopeful in a winning position, and fearful in a losing position.
  • #85
  • Jan 8, 2016 11:26pm Jan 8, 2016 11:26pm
Quoting magnumfreak
We have seen the beginnings of taking the retail trader out of the picture here in the US. The ever increasing "reserve" requirements along with the diminishing leverage has taken some of the power away from us. Leverage isn't the culprit, risk is the demon here. Leverage never blew up an account, people not knowing what they were doing blew up accounts. How many retail forex brokers are left in the US? Just a few and the requirements for opening an account are getting tougher. You need 10K minimum for Interactive Brokers. I am surprised that the...
10k was always the minimum for Interactive Brokers. Oanda is still $100 or something like that.


Really? You truly believe retail Forex will only be at 4:1 leverage, when retail leveraged stock trading is significantly higher than that? And stocks are 5x more volatile than currencies? Forex could go to 20:1 but unlikely to go any lower than that.

Deflation doesn't effect currency markets like it does asset markets. Liquidity in currencies remains the same during periods of asset deflation.
Be hopeful in a winning position, and fearful in a losing position.
  • #86
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:44am Jan 9, 2016 2:44am
Quoting Kilian19
I am just wondering, is this guy still around? . I would be more than happy to take on his challenge.
Makavell accepted the challenge here, and you can read how MapleLeaf backed out of the deal in post #317 of that thread, and Makavell's response in post #320.

If I recall correctly, the original arrangement was a $36k bet that the challenger couldn't make upward of $3k per month, every month, for 12 consecutive months.
  • #87
  • Jan 9, 2016 3:26am Jan 9, 2016 3:26am
Quoting hanover
{quote} Makavell accepted the challenge here, and you can read how MapleLeaf backed out of the deal in post #317 of that thread, and Makavell's response in post #320. If I recall correctly, the original arrangement was a $36k bet that the challenger couldn't make upward of $3k per month, every month, for 12 consecutive months.
Interesting, if it's apparently impossible to make money in this game, it's odd that Mapleleaf backed out and Makavell was so keen to take him up on it. Maybe I've sighted a REAL Unicorn eh
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #88
  • Jan 9, 2016 5:21am Jan 9, 2016 5:21am
Quoting Rag2RichesFX
So many doom and gloomers here have no clue what they are talking about. Retail forex isn't going away, nor is it going down to 1:1 leverage. It is LEVERAGE ITSELF which allows the markets to remain liquid. LEVERAGE makes the world go round, literally. Without it, global trade would grind to a halt. Retail forex is bigger than ever, and it will remain that way. 50:1 leverage SHOULD be mandatory for everyone worldwide. Trading at 200:1 means 25 pips wipes you out. Actually, 10:1 leverage should be mandatory, but the markets are liquid enough that...
Higher leverage means everything when you're compounding. Although I would limit it to 500:1. Don't see the need to go over it as your required margin is quite low at that point.
  • #89
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:28pm Jan 9, 2016 2:28pm
Quoting Ill-b-back
{quote} Interesting, if it's apparently impossible to make money in this game, it's odd that Mapleleaf backed out and Makavell was so keen to take him up on it. Maybe I've sighted a REAL Unicorn eh
No, he did not back out. It was just some sort of stupid posturing from both sides.
Anyhow, the ones-who-know know that no one is making money trading the forex
  • #90
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:30pm Jan 9, 2016 2:30pm
Quoting Mingary
{quote} No, he did not back out. It was just some sort of stupid posturing from both sides.
In other words, Mapleleaf was not serious.
Makavelle was keen to go and showed no signs he was not serious
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #91
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:31pm Jan 9, 2016 2:31pm
But hey, if that's an inconvenient scenario for your hypothesis, I understand
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #92
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:34pm Jan 9, 2016 2:34pm
Quoting Mingary
{quote} . Anyhow, the ones-who-know know that no one is making money trading the forex
Except you of course, you seem you know how to trade and are making money according to your own "margin call" thread.

But that's another story.....
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #93
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:34pm Jan 9, 2016 2:34pm
Quoting Ill-b-back
{quote} In other words, Mapleleaf was not serious. Makavelle was keen to go and showed no signs he was not serious
Sure, believe that if you must
  • #94
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:38pm Jan 9, 2016 2:38pm
Quoting jayboii478
Like would forex ever be shut off to us retail traders? No one would benefit from that i don't think? For example the usa government trying to shut it off or the regulators is that likely to happen at all?
No. In fact, the trend will be for the further expansion of the markets for greater access, the intent being to deepen liquidity flows worldwide. Capitalism defines the structure of all sectors and that contemplates deregulation. There may be periodic attempts to provide a safer environment so as retail players can transition more smoothly and the sector can thus develop more fluidly but the overall direction is for greater participation.
The road to pipland is arduous and fraught with challenge.
  • #95
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:39pm Jan 9, 2016 2:39pm
Quoting Mingary
{quote} Sure, believe that if you must
Oh I do,

doubt it if you must,

and it seems you must, for all your own years posturing about impossible forex profits won't allow you to see anything else

On a separate note, what was it about Makavelles' acceptance of the offer that indicated he was not serious?
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #96
  • Jan 9, 2016 2:50pm Jan 9, 2016 2:50pm
Quoting Ill-b-back
{quote} Oh I do, doubt it if you must, and it seems you must, for all your own years posturing about impossible forex profits won't allow you to see anything else On a separate note, what was it about Makavelles' acceptance of the offer that indicated he was not serious?
Only Mingary's reality is true. Nothing else matters. You are wrong simply because you don't cut your wrists every time you think about forex. Follow Mingary into the depths of wisdom that is "forex is bad". Feel the rush as you go around spreading the good news of how "forex is bad". Learn how to repeat yourself so that proclaiming that "nobody makes any money" is as reflexive as breathing.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #97
  • Jan 9, 2016 3:01pm Jan 9, 2016 3:01pm
Quoting Ill-b-back
{quote} Oh I do, doubt it if you must, and it seems you must, for all your own years posturing about impossible forex profits won't allow you to see anything else On a separate note, what was it about Makavelles' acceptance of the offer that indicated he was not serious?

and then there was silence
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #98
  • Jan 9, 2016 3:02pm Jan 9, 2016 3:02pm
Quoting nubcake
{quote} Only Mingary's reality is true. Nothing else matters. You are wrong simply because you don't cut your wrists every time you think about forex. Follow Mingary into the depths of wisdom that is "forex is bad". Feel the rush as you go around spreading the good news of how "forex is bad". Learn how to repeat yourself so that proclaiming that "nobody makes any money" is as reflexive as breathing.
Come with me if you want to live....
  • #99
  • Jan 9, 2016 5:00pm Jan 9, 2016 5:00pm
Quoting merquise
{quote} Higher leverage means everything when you're compounding. Although I would limit it to 500:1. Don't see the need to go over it as your required margin is quite low at that point.
The only reason a broker should EVER offer 500:1 is if they have proof of existing funds in other bank accounts which are in contract for these funds to be used for the sole purpose of paying the broker back should they ever receive a negative balance.

Remember at 500:1, you only need to have the market gap more than 20 pips to then have a negative balance and owe the broker money

Of course trading at such small lot sizes, say.. less than 1million (10 standard lots, as 500:1 traders tend to do) it's unlikely for there to be lack of liquidity to fill the order, but it's possible.
Be hopeful in a winning position, and fearful in a losing position.
  • #100
  • Jan 9, 2016 6:11pm Jan 9, 2016 6:11pm
Quoting Rag2RichesFX
{quote}Remember at 500:1, you only need to have the market gap more than 20 pips to then have a negative balance and owe the broker money Of course trading at such small lot sizes, say.. less than 1million (10 standard lots, as 500:1 traders tend to do) it's unlikely for there to be lack of liquidity to fill the order, but it's possible.
Most businesses care for the bottom line. While it is unlikely for a trader to survive very long at an effective leverage of 500:1 the rare accounts which end up with a negative balance shouldn't be such a big problem for the broker because there are a lot of other traders trading bigger volume than they would with less leverage.

BTW: very few brokers offer a genuine 500:1 leverage at least not if you calculate the margin call level into it. They use it to calculate the capital requirement for you to allow you to control a certain amount of money but you can't really max it out.
0 traders viewing now