Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

Thanks Rocky007

You now are both a Fundamental and Technical Forex Trader and all that is left for you to perfect is Money Flow Method and Risk Management and you will graduate to the 5% exclusive Club.

I have much respect for you and thanks for your PM. Respect can only be earned not given.

All of us here understand that and is the reason that FLAMES do not exist on this thread.

For FLAMES (Joke) please go to EUR/USD where most Forex Traders go. It is a good thread although very combative at times.


Benjaminis

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38644963

Snippet:
The next move in UK interest rates could be up or down, Bank of England governor Mark Carney has again warned.


At present, UK households appeared to be "entirely looking through Brexit-related uncertainties", he said in a speech at the London School of Economics.
However, the country was "entering a period of somewhat higher consumer price inflation", he added.

As a result, monetary policy could respond "in either direction".

The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is required to achieve price stability, defined by the government as an annual inflation rate of 2%.
Higher inflation in the near future would help to moderate possible increases in unemployment, Mr Carney said.

'Trade-off'
The people of the UK had chosen price stability as the main objective for monetary policy, but they also valued stable growth, incomes and jobs, the governor said.

"In exceptional circumstances, trade-off between real stability and inflation can arise that monetary policy is required to balance," he added.

"This is now the case given the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU. "

Economic forecasters have predicted that inflation could rise above the 2% target as a result of the pound's weakness since the Brexit vote in June last year.

Sterling fell 1% against most major currencies on Monday as markets anticipated that Prime Minister Theresa May would use a major speech on Tuesday to advocate a so-called "hard Brexit" in which the UK would leave the EU's single market and customs union.

"Monetary policy can respond, in either direction, to changes in the economic outlook as they unfold to ensure a sustainable return of inflation to the 2% target," Mr Carney said.

The bank's remit recognised that bringing inflation back to target too rapidly could cause undesirable "volatility in output and employment", he added.
Inflation target

However, he warned: "There are limits to the extent to which above-target inflation can be tolerated."

Mr Carney said that following the decision to leave the EU, the UK would "redefine its openness to the movement of goods, services, people and capital".
"Over the next few years, the magnitude of the effects of this adjustment on the economy's supply potential, domestic demand and the value of sterling will be somewhat uncertain, and this process will have a significant bearing on inflation," he said.

But he pledged: "Whatever transpires, the MPC will manage monetary policy to achieve the inflation target in a sustainable manner."


5 Minute Chart - GBP/USD from Finviz

http://finviz.com/forex_charts.ashx?t=GBPUSD&tf=m5


Benjaminis

Haha that's a good jock lol
Dear Mr. Benjaminis I don't need flames all I need is 5% exclusive club. I'm an amateur trader, the experience you have and the knowledge it cannot trade with money. The amount of knowledge I gain from this thread its change me a lot. Thank you for your kind contribution.

Hi, Im reading like never before and I have one question - it is possible, that it has been mentioned earlier and I havent seen it yet, but - what are your exact entries? how do you enter a trade? Benjamin, you wrote: "the most important one [indicator] that I look at when I enter into a Forex Trade is Support and Resistance." How do you draw it? Do you use higher timeframe high/low/open/close, london/usa open? And do you enter after price touch the line, after it gets close, after some confirmation? If the information is in this thread, I hope I will get to it soon. Good trading to you all.

Rocky007

I used to post in the EUR/USD thread so I know how it goes there. I do not want to give you false hopes and I definitely am not.

You have a good talent and you are a quick learner so you are well on your way to the 5% club. I have been learning my trade with real funds in the hundreds of thousands of US Dollars and while I had substantial losses for my largest client when all in the span of months EUR/USD had hit it's all time HIGH just over 1.60 and then I told my client that it could not or would not go below 1.20 and I was LONG 30 Positions of EUR/USD , well that was NOT A PLEASANT MARGIN CALL even though the funds were not mine. It hit me the same as if it was since I HATE to lose at anything in life.

However there was a GREAT POSITIVE in the negative. I knew that to protect my future clients and myself , I needed to develop a FOOL PROOF , Risk Management Method and I have.

Your contribution helps me to help others since the more people that trade Forex properly and show that it does work the better that it is for all of us that understand and can earn a living if they so choose in this very complex business.

Thank you Rocky007


Benjaminis

Hello mbleska

I am going to ask KeepCalmfx to answer your question which I am sure will be done. The more that those that know and understand answer the questions the better they will become and the better that I become in helping others. Thank you for your question and please continue to ask as you continue reading all the information on the 64 pages of Forex Material. I will answer that right now WE are only focusing on two of the four Trade Plans.

(1) SHORT US 30 (100 Units) No more than 3 positions and MAXIMUM RISK of 6% on this Trade Plan effective until March 31, 2017 unless things change and they may.

(2) SHORT USD/JPY (100 Units) Even though they are Correlated we still trade it because there are some other factors involved that make it another type of Forex Trade. We always protect ourselves against HUMAN ERROR or a BLACK SWAN event by our Risk Management per Trade Plan of 6%.


Benjaminis

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037...s-economy-2017


Snippet:

Summary
We've reached that wonderful time of year when financial pundits pull out their forecaster hats and take a crack at the future.

This time the exercise is particularly interesting because we're at several turning points.


Any one of them could remake the entire year overnight.
We've reached that wonderful time of year when financial pundits pull out their forecaster hats and take a crack at the future. This time the exercise is particularly interesting because we're at several turning points. Any one of them could remake the entire year overnight.


I should probably say up front that I am actually somewhat optimistic about 2017 - optimistic, meaning I think we will muddle through - but that's a lot better outcome than I was expecting five months ago. However, mid-course corrections may be warranted.


Instead of trying to answer questions about the future, I'll try to list those we should be asking as 2017 opens.

We can't afford for any of the major components of the global economy to break down; so, it's smart to ask, "Where are the weak points?". That's what we'll do today. We'll poke at the economic mechanism as it grinds along.


Trumping DC
The biggest change will happen in Washington DC when Donald Trump takes office. Aside from the changes he can make on his own authority, he'll be in position to approve the many Republican initiatives that President Obama blocked. Here are some items I'm watching.

Tax reform: Our monstrosity of a tax system needs major reconstruction: a reduction and simplification of corporate taxes, a significant reduction of the individual income tax, and replacement of the Social Security tax with a VAT-like consumption tax. What will come out of the House is still unknown.

My sources are telling me House members want to pass an initial tax cut quickly and defer the more complicated changes for later in the year. The easy initial tax cut is to remove the Obamacare tax when they repeal Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), which it appears they will do early in the session.

Final thoughts on taxes: Some industries will suffer massive impacts if you slap tariffs on incoming goods. Further, putting a high tariff on products that are sold at Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) and Costco (NASDAQ:COST) and on Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) is massively inflationary to those shoppers (and that's most of us).
These policies can be tricky, and the consequences can have a big impact on consumer confidence.

Energy: The Obama administration's heavy-handed environmental regulations are a major impediment to US energy independence. Trump can change many of them quickly because they came in the form of executive orders and rulemaking that don't require congressional approval.

Trump can also approve some of the Arctic and offshore drilling projects that Obama would not consider. I am told that there are some $50 billion worth of oil-production projects that are ready to go, which would be a massive source of high-paying jobs.

If he wants to play hardball with OPEC, Trump could even impose a tariff on imported petroleum products that we can produce here (as opposed to the raw crude, especially heavy crudes, that we currently don't produce). That would give domestic producers and refiners a further boost. It would also aggravate the rest of the world's oil glut.

Economic stimulus: We have plenty of shovel-ready projects, or could create them in short order, that would create jobs and simplify trade and travel. Some will not be very profitable in the short run, so they may not happen under a tax-credit scheme.

Trade: Import-dependent businesses are on pins and needles right now, hoping the Trump administration doesn't turn toward the kind of protectionism some of the new appointees have advocated in the past. We'll see. The president has considerable latitude in this area, so almost anything is possible.

Banking: One reason the stock market has gone bananas since the election is the prospect of banking deregulation. Wall Street has been chafing under the Dodd-Frank Act's requirements and restrictions. The Volcker Rule on proprietary trading has clearly worsened bond market liquidity and taken a major revenue center away from the banks.


The Dodd-Frank Act as presently constructed could actually aggravate matters if we find ourselves in another financial crisis. Dodd-Frank prevents the Federal Reserve from stepping in with liquidity and instead says that the FDIC should "resolve" any failing banks.

I see the point, but the main reason we have a central bank is to be a lender of last resort to the banking system. The FDIC simply can't act fast enough, nor does it have the ability or the cash to act effectively in a crisis. Congress needs to fix this soon.

Finally, Dodd-Frank puts our regional and small community banks at a massive disadvantage. They get all of the costs and are restricted from their normal activities. Overhauling Dodd-Frank will be a big boon to entrepreneurs and small businesses and will create jobs.

Federal Reserve: We should also see at least two nominees to the Fed's Board of Governors soon after Trump takes office. He may get a third one if Daniel Tarullo leaves, as some observers expect. He will get to nominate both the chair and vice chair next year, and it is likely that the remaining members will think about leaving as well when Yellen departs. But the early nominees will tell us a lot about Trump's priorities and long-term plans - hopefully for the better.

Meanwhile, the Fed is in the middle of a long-overdue policy turn. There's still a risk that it will find it started tightening just in time for a recession, which is also long overdue.


Surprises and Black Swans
Black swans aren't a risk limited to the world of finance; they happen in politics too. Such an event could push aside all the best-laid plans and change everything.


Canadian bubble: Our neighbors to the north are at their own turning point. The Canadian economy was riding high in the commodity boom, but has run into problems after two years of sharply lower oil prices. Since then, Canada has avoided recession, but has not enjoyed much growth.

Canada also has a housing bubble that looks increasingly ready to pop. House prices have little to do with oil and everything to do with Chinese buying property.

What happens in Canada will tell us something important about China and vice versa. Anything that keeps Chinese money from leaving China will raise the odds of Canada's bubble popping.

US energy policy matters to Canada too. The country's huge oil sands deposits would help its export balance, but in some cases, the best access requires pipelines through the US, like the Keystone that Obama has held up. Trump can help Canada by letting that project go forward.


Crowded exits in Europe: I thought there was a good chance the Italian bank crisis would come to a head in 2016. The Italians seem to have yet again delayed the inevitable. Reality hasn't fundamentally changed, though. Troubled institutions are not going to get better on their own, nor is the new government going to miraculously gain public confidence.

Saving Italian banks will take multiple hundreds of billions of euros, which Italy does not have, nor does it technically even have the legal right to unilaterally bail these banks out. It would have to utilize an ECB facility that does not now exist to get that much money, and such a measure would require German approval.

I keep telling you that Italy is the most dangerous economic issue on the world front. Attention must be paid.


That said, Europe is quite capable of staving off disaster. It is a professional at that. It can do it again this time if nothing else goes wrong. That's a big if.


NATO: The defense alliance partially overlaps with the EU but also includes Turkey. Trump wants the other member states to increase their defense spending. He says, correctly, that they aren't paying their fair share and has openly questioned whether the US would come to their aid in an attack.
The Baltic countries and Poland are very concerned, as they are the most exposed to potential Russian aggression.
https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fas...y_in_20171.png
Does Putin intend to attack and try to occupy one of those countries? I really rather doubt he will, but he can cause all kinds of problems without attacking. Fear alone is sufficiently troublesome.


As with Italy, though, fear has consequences. Leaders can juggle only so much. When too many things happen at once, the risk rises that someone will drop a ball.

Asian angst: Relationships within Asia are in flux, to say the least. Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese president and subsequent comments show he's willing to roll back prior commitments in order to get better ones. We could see some major changes in 2017.

China has other problems too. It is holding the domestic economy together with astonishing amounts of debt. New liquidity can't leave the country due to capital controls, but it has to go somewhere. The result is rolling asset bubbles that make even Vancouver housing prices look flat.

The transition from an economy driven by exports to one led by domestic demand is probably going as well as it can, but that's not saying much. The process may accelerate if Trump has his way.

Over in Japan, something interesting is happening. The job market is unbelievably tight. I saw in a Wall Street Journal report last week that each available worker has two job offers on average. The unemployment rate is historically low.

In a normal market, you would expect employers to compete for workers by raising wages, right? But it isn't happening. Wages are flat or even falling. Deflation has changed the psychology for two generations of workers and managers. Employees are afraid to demand more, and companies are afraid to pay more.

It's also a potentially ominous sign for the US. The Fed and many others are watching labor markets closely for signs of wage inflation. Rising wages are one of the factors that would justify tighter interest-rate policies. Yet, Japan shows that unemployment can stay low for years without necessarily causing wage inflation.
https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fas...y_in_20172.png
Japan is another potential target of Trump's trade policy. Unlike China, Japan really is devaluing its currency. The policy is working too, in terms of promoting exports. But those exports don't all go to the United States. Japan sells China much of its industrial equipment and technology, demand for which will presumably drop if Trump succeeds in reducing Chinese exports.


Final Thoughts
We enter 2017 with more question marks than I can count. Even if all the policymakers are competent and have good intentions, stuff happens.
Now, more than ever, economic risk around the world emanates from our governments and central banks.

Trump has the traditional 100 days to deliver something to keep the optimism going. Hopefully, a Congress that is nominally Republican controlled can agree on important measures and move more quickly than we have seen it move in quite a while.

There have been only a few times when I was not optimistic about the coming year, but thankfully this is again one of the optimistic times. I'm actually as pumped as I have been in a long time.

2016 has been a year of major surprises. Frankly, I think 2017 has the potential to offer even more challenges than 2016 did.



Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

See you in the London open, bye for now

Bye see you around 3 AM EST (GMT + 5) Sweet Dreams... It is 6:17 PM EST in Canada and getting ready to eat Supper and see what happens in Asia around 8:30 PM EST.


Benjaminis

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29


We discuss the British Pound in this video, regarding the cross currents of England currently experiencing a hot economy, but facing a real threat of recession as Brexit ramifications start hitting the British economy. Basically, Mark Carney overreacted to the Brexit Vote. British citizens are getting the worse of it in both regards, higher inflation with negative real rates, and a highly probable recession and FTSE market Crash down the line coming at the worst possible time.
Mark Carney should have waited to lower the interest rate, and provide stimulus to the British economy when it is actually needed. None of the ramifications of Brexit have occurred, and right now the British economy is running hot with regards to inflation, which probably gets worse in the upcoming months.
In effect British Citizens will be punished twice for Brexit, now with much higher inflation, and down the line with a substantial recession when they actually start to experience the effects of leaving the European Union. Central Bankers should take heed of the lesson here not to use up limited ammunition, and save this 'dry powder' for when it really is needed to mitigate the effects of a substantial economic recession.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iRyW_CLto...yment-rate.png
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qnYh0izuQ...erest-rate.png
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z94Zb7nvK...lation-cpi.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZEoeTF20B...gdp-growth.png
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-60ajYYpIK...wth-annual.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aYmoT7nkO...bond-yield.png
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tL_hZl8YB...historical.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qHp_7a2r5...ical999999.png
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z9kCMeSJ2...yment-rate.png
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gn1AIgctf...ation-rate.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D6fg0qrFx...age-growth.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bjaJBAlnZ...ation-rate.png
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TU_KcXzcD...les-annual.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LNrsRffb_...ance-sheet.png
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4iGbFMHYl...ebt-to-gdp.png

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Submitted by Martin Armstring via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
Al Sharpton seems to be doing whatever he can to mislead minorities in a very dangerous way. He has been organizing civil rights activists vowing to defend what they say are hard-fought gains in voting rights and criminal justice prior to the presidency of Donald Trump.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0114_DC3_1.jpg


Sharpton is not stupid. He knows what he is doing. Why did he not do this against Obama who kept defending police? Why now?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau..._sharpton1.jpg


It was the Clintons who signed in the Mandatory Miniumum sentences. Since the Clintons signed that act, the prison population has more than doubled. It use to be a prosecutor did not care if you went to prison as long as he won the conviction. Then it all changed. Prosecutors get no credit for their career UNLESS someone goes to prison.

I was running the legal library having to give advice to people in prison based upon the law. The unit manager came to me and gave me an old Chinese guy they just put in prison and said “Here – he’s yours!” I asked what do you mean? He said “You speak that stuff!” The prisoner did not speak English and was probably in his eighties. I responded: “I do not speak Mandarin. I know Japanese. “Oh its all the same. He’s yours!” It turned out he drove on federal property with an expired drivers license and was sentenced to 30 days in prison. There was another guy we had to laugh about. He was in prison for shooting a moose on federal property. It got to the point we would ask – What are you in for? Farting in a federal building?

Al Sharpton had more than 20 years to lead a protest about the injustice of the criminal system put in by the Clintons. Of course, they are Democrats. Can’t do that. OMG, people might find out the truth! Sharpton is brainwashing these people as if Trump is somehow going to make this worse? Where has he been for the past 25 years?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau..._sharpton2.jpg

Trump is not a racist nor has he EVER said anything about rolling back civil rights since they really do not exist right now anyhow. This is all about stirring people to protest about things they do not even know what they are yelling about or are they yelling about the wrong people. This is just nuts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Snippet:

Abstract:
The Clinton Global Initiative's closure comes as several international scandals emerge linking government corruption in various states to the Clinton Global Initiative and its parent organization the Clinton Foundation.

I. New Zealand
Reports began to emerge in November 2016 that New Zealand Prime Minister John Key had given over $7.7 million in taxpayers' money to the Clinton Global Initiative. This donation was part of a 2013 pledge to ultimately give $13.7 million to the CGI. The revelations created a political scandal which was an influencing factor in John Key's announcement that he would resign from his position. The New Zealand Herald has since criticized government support for the Clinton Global Initiative, highlighting other reports of controversy and scandal which have dogged the Clinton Foundation in recent years.


II. Norway
In July 2016, Norwegian paper Dagbladet reported that from 2007 to 2015, the governments of Jens Stoltenberg and Erna Solberg of Norway sent the Clinton Foundation and its various initiatives over 584 million Kroner. Jens Stoltenberg went on from his position as Prime Minister of Norway to become the current Secretary General of NATO.

Norway also was rocked by a child abuse scandal which came to light in November 2016. On November 20, the Associated Press reported that 20 individuals had been arrested and 31 more were being sought as part of an investigation known as "Dark Room" which began in 2015. Many of the suspects were described as being highly educated and the arrestees included lawyers and politicians. Investigator Hilde Reikrås told the Norwegian press that further arrests beyond those currently charged were expected.

American media outlets such as the New York Times, ABC News, and The Washington Post initially ran reports on the arrests. However, within a few weeks of the news breaking, these news corporations removed any mention of the Norway child abuse ring from their webpages. Listed below are archives of the links, showing that they no longer direct to a valid news article:

New York Times Archive taken on December 9, 2016
ABC News Archive taken on January 16, 2017 showing a redirect from the former article to the website's home page
Washington Post Archive taken on January 16, 2017

The reason for the sudden redaction of these stories by the above news corporations is currently unknown. The proximity of the revelation of both financial and abuse scandals, both of which involved members of the Norwegian government raises the question of whether or not the two might have been related in any possible way.


III. Germany
Reports have also emerged that Germany donated over £4 million in taxpayer funds to various Clinton Foundation initiatives. The funds appear to have been funneled primarily through Germany's Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) or Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety.

Angela Merkel has a history of seemingly changing her stances on political issues after meetings with Clinton Foundation representatives. In 2015, when Germany was mulling over a third round of austerity measures for Greece, CNN reported that Merkel was inclined to refuse a new stimulus for the struggling nation.

On the same day as CNN's article ran however, an email from Wikileaks revealed that foreign policy advisors to Bill Clinton and John Podesta disapproved of Merkel's decision to refuse further austerity to Greece. The decision was made to have Clinton call Merkel by phone and express his desire that she move ahead with the Greek stimulus.

Within nine days of the date that the above email was sent on, the BBC reported that Merkel was "flip flopping" and would now consider a third round of austerity measures for Greece. When austerity was actually given to Greece it was criticized as being far too generous and not in Germany's economic interests.

This article was originally posted at www.disobedientmedia.com

5 Minutes and 24 seconds on U Tube ...

GEOPOLITICAL RISK - Be Careful trading Forex on Friday from 6 AM EST until the close.


Benjaminis

HEADS UP MAYBE !!!

https://dailyreckoning.com/china-may...y+Reckoning%29

China May Soon Shock the Market


Is China preparing to devalue its currency again? The fate of the market may hang on the answer…

China last devalued between December 2015 and January 2016. The result? U.S. stocks kicked off the year to their worst start ever. And that was only a 2% devaluation.

China previously devalued 4% in August 2015. That was enough to send the Dow plunging 508 points in one session — the Dow’s eighth-worst single-day crash in its history. It looked like it may have led to “the big one” so many have been expecting.

But the Fed managed once again to yank another rabbit out of its hat. The day of reckoning was averted — or at least postponed.

Could the Fed pull it off again if China devalues? But why would China devalue… when the last two occasions sparked massive financial panics?

The answer: It might have to in order to defend its domestic economy…

The muscular U.S. dollar has hung China on the hooks of a dilemma. It’s true China wants a weak currency to spark its export economy. Weak, yes. But not too weak…

A freefalling yuan sucks the lifeblood from the Chinese economy. Literally. Capital’s already fleeing China in buckets, heading for the safer and greener (literally) vistas of the U.S. dollar. That sets in train a vicious cycle. More capital flight out of China leads to more weakness as investors dump yuan for dollars.

So China must put a floor under the yuan to end the capital flight.

That means the Chinese central bank been dumping dollars to steady the yuan. But here’s Catch-22: To defend the yuan, it’s been selling dollars at such a gait… that it’s burned a gaping hole through its dollar reserves. It’s unsustainable.


China’s reserves fell nearly $320 billion last year, to $3.01 trillion. That’s piled on top of a record loss of $513 billion in 2015. $3 trillion in reserves may sound like a lot. But for China, it’s less than you might think…

In fact, Jim Rickards says China’s going flat broke…

“China is going broke. This statement comes as a shock to those who have heard over and over that China is a rising economic superstar and will soon be the greatest economy on Earth, surpassing the U.S. in the No. 1 role.”

How can China be going broke? Jim peeks beneath the surface:
China started 2015 with about $4 trillion in hard currency reserves. About $1 trillion fled the country in 2015 and 2016 based on fears of yuan devaluation. That’s classic capital flight.

Another $1 trillion is relatively illiquid, including direct investments in mines and natural resources through sovereign wealth funds such as China Investment Corp. That’s wealth, but it’s not money that can be used in a liquidity crisis.



Finally, $1 trillion has to be held as a precautionary reserve to bail out China’s insolvent banks and Ponzi-style “wealth management products.” Failure to bail out the banks… could lead to social unrest that would topple Communist rule, so that won’t be allowed.


“That,” says Jim, “leaves only $1 trillion of the original $4 trillion in liquid form.” And if it keeps jettisoning dollars at this rate, “China will be devoid of useable liquid assets by late 2017.”


Those are the stakes. Which brings us back to another possible devaluation…

China’s recently enacted regulations limiting the ability of individuals and businesses to move money out of the country — capital controls, in other words — while denying they were capital controls.

But capital controls, admitted or not, can only go so far. If folks are bent on getting their money out, they’ll find a way They might even make things worse.
As Jim explains, “History shows that weak capital controls may be worse that no controls because they send a message of ‘no confidence’ while not really stopping the outflows.”

So… If the yuan’s going to depreciate anyway and capital controls are shams, how does China manage the problem without further depleting its dollar reserves?


Devaluation.
Just flat out devalue the yuan. That way they don’t have to keep torching dollars to try to prop it up. It’s a wasting asset regardless. It might hurt in the short run but it’s better to get it over with and have done.


As Reuters explains it, “If [China] continues to burn through reserves at a rapid rate, some strategists believe China’s leaders may have little choice but to sanction another big ‘one-off’ devaluation like that in 2015, which would likely roil global financial markets.”

Yes, it might roil global financial markets. But answer this question: Is China’s leadership more concerned with the U.S. stock market… or its domestic economy, social stability and thus its own rule? The question answers itself, no?


Finally Jim gives a foretaste of what could be next: “Yuan devaluation is happening in baby steps, but that may soon turn into a one-time ‘maxi-devaluation’ of 30% or more to stop the bleeding.”

The last times China devalued 2% and 4% the stock market practically collapsed. What happens if it devalues 30%? And what if the Fed can’t pull another rabbit out of that tired old hat?


What if, indeed? But it would sure send Trump a message: “You want a trade war? You’ve got one. Happy Inauguration Day!”

Regards,
Brian Maher
Managing editor, The Daily Reckoning


Ed. Note: Sign up for a FREE subscription toThe Daily Reckoning, and you’ll receive in depth insights for specific profit driven opportunities. By taking advantage now, you’re ensuring that you’ll be set up for updates and issues in the future. It’s FREE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH , HANOVER

I just found this great post at least for myself. I copied it and will paste it here now. I personally ask all my friends here who are learning and trading since December 27, 2016 which is 20 days ago if they would read what I am about to paste here now and give me their opinions. Thank You.

 

1. Post 1
2. Cleanup
3. Quote
4. First Post: Dec 25, 2010 6:46am | Edited Nov 20, 2016 11:32am

1. http://cdn.assets.forexfactory.net/n...ar18699_19.gif hanover
2. Joined Sep 2006 | Status: ... | 7,150 Posts | Online Now

Twenty-five widely believed forex myths

I would have saved myself a significant amount of time and money if I'd understood the following, when I first started out:


Myth # 1. That inverting the signals in a losing strategy must necessarily make it a winning one.
Any strategy that fails to exploit a real market inefficiency is effectively generating random signals. Inverting a random signal generator will only create yet another random signal generator, which will therefore be equally ineffective. Explained in more detail here (Part 1 and Part 2).


Myth # 2. That MM (and sizing variations, nedging, scaling in/out, etc) in itself can provide a winning edge.
Varying position size is effective only if the larger sizes coincide with winning trades, to achieve which one must already have an edge. All other forms of MM merely re-balance return and risk, and/or redistribute wins and losses; they do not alter expectancy. No negative expectancy game can be beaten solely by using MM. The attached XLS can be used to demonstrate all of this; PipMeUp has posted a mathematical proof here. Expectancy is improved only by better timed entries and/or exits.

Grid systems use arbitrary levels that have no technical basis. Martingale variants (see myth #12) merely accelerate risk of ruin without improving expectancy. Averaging down is justified only to the extent that, in the situations it is used, there is increased probability (commensurate with the increase in exposure) of price reversing with each new entry. Scaling in/out are averaging processes that can smooth a trader's income, but in themselves do not alter expectancy; single entry/exit point methods, if applied consistently over a long enough period of time, provide a similar kind of averaging.

'Recovery' type systems make no sense because (everything else being equal) recent losses have no greater effect on eventual bottom line than any other losses. Moreover, mentally grouping any set of trades as a single entity is merely an arbitrary process that has no bearing on subsequent market behavior or probabilities; each component position creates its own P/L, and must therefore be profitable in its own right to be justifiable. More on rescue/recovery trading here.

Nedging ('locking', or 'hedging' buy and sell positions in the same pair) in itself is impotent because every nedge can be replicated by a single net position, and nedging incurs greater transaction costs (swap + spread). The same logic applies to triangular and circular hedges, or 'baskets', which similarly resolve themselves into simpler net positions. More on same-pair hedging here and here.

The primary goals of MM should be (1) preservation of capital, and (2) an even distribution/diversification of risk (i.e. avoiding the possibility of one loss wiping out the gains made by several smaller wins).


Myth # 3. That merely being unconventional in one's approach improves one's chances of success.
Only an understanding of underlying market drivers, or at least the chart patterns they produce, can provide any kind of edge. Whether that is 'conventional' or 'unconventional' is moot.


Myth # 4. That entries are more important than exits, or vice versa.
Entries and exits are nothing more than vehicles to adjust net position, and are therefore equally important. At any point a trader is either net long, short or flat. All that ultimately matters is how frequently (and heavily) he is net long while price is rising, and net short while it's falling.


Myth # 5. That it's impossible to forecast price direction.
Every trading decision (e.g. entry, exit) ultimately reflects an implicit forecast, or at least a forecast on the basis of probability. The more accurate a trader is at adjusting his position relative to market turns, the more pips he banks. An edge is ultimately the result of ascertaining directional bias, or at least some kind of behavioral bias, at certain occasions in the market, and timing one's entries and/or exits accordingly.

Knowledge and experience in 'reading' the market (in deciding when to enter/exit) is key for a discretionary trader. With a mechanical trader, the 'forecasting' is implicit within his entry/exit rules, that he has already tested, and proven profitable to the point of statistical validity.

Some traders say "I don't make predictions, I simply follow price". "Following price" merely represents an implicit forecast that the current move (as perceived by the trader) will continue. Nonetheless, the current move must end at some future point.


Myth # 6. That taking high RR trades will in itself guarantee success.
Myth #6a. That a high win rate in itself will guarantee success (thanks to tashkent for pointing this out)
Everything else being equal, RR (aka payoff ratio, or avg net win to loss size) and win rate operate in inverse proportion to each other, i.e. shooting for higher RR trades will decrease your win rate commensurately, and vice versa. If price movement was a completely random walk, this inverse proportion would be exact and inviolable, and (ignoring costs) ALL trading systems would have a long term expectancy of zero, and consequently their P/L would be nothing more than fortuitous. Hence it's necessary to find an inefficiency — a directional or behavioral bias in price movement — to break this inherent equilibrium, and create a genuine 'edge'.

A strategy of 'cutting losses short' and 'letting profits run' is effective only to whatever extent markets 'trend' (in the situations that it's used). More detail here.

If success was as simple as taking high RR trades, then writing a winning EA would be child's play, and everybody would run one and effortlessly become a trading millionaire.


Myth # 7. That unrealized (floating) P/L is less important than realized (already banked) P/L.
It's easy to show that they're equally important. If you close the floating trade, profit is immediately realized, and you can always open a trade of the same direction and size, after which — apart from the additional spread cost — your entire situation (account equity; exposure to risk; available margin) is identical.

Here's another way of looking at it: no matter what the current P/L of a trade is, then (everything else being equal) approx 50% of the time you'll benefit from keeping the trade open (because your P/L subsequently improves) and 50% of the time you'll benefit from closing it (because your P/L would have subsequently worsened). Hence over a great number of trades, you'll be better off 50% of the time, and worse off 50% of the time, regardless of whether you realize the P/L or not.

It's both fallacious, and dangerous, to believe that a loss is not a loss until an order is closed. That is akin to believing that every trade, if left open for long enough, must eventually yield a profit, which is true only if one has infinite time and capital. If, in the interim, a margin call occurs, all unrealized losses suddenly become very real! Moreover, the money in your account that's available to you at any given time includes floating P/L. (And let's not forget that one of the biggest causes of the current global crisis was banks' ignoring paper losses).

Whether your current position is (say) +100 or -100 shouldn't have any effect on your strategy. The past can't be re-lived, hence the only thing that matters now is what will happen subsequently, and your trading decision(s) should reflect that. Market behavior and probabilities are not going to change because of the P/L of one insignificant retail trader.


Myth # 8. That 'casino based' MM doesn't apply to trading.
MM (bet/position sizing) is pure math, and applies to any speculative activity that generates a distribution of wins and losses. As indeed trading does.

MM can not provide an edge, unless you can establish serial correlation (i.e. the outcomes of consecutive trades are causally dependent), or otherwise find a way of getting the larger positions to coincide with winning trades. See myth #2. The edge can come only from the 'gameplay' that generates the win/loss distribution (in trading that is entries+exits). MM can then be applied to this distribution.


Myth # 9. That using prior profit to offset proposed risk in pyramiding is, in itself, a winning strategy.
You can't use this strategy to beat a casino, and since MM is pure math (see myth #8), it likewise provides no mathematical edge in trading. Pyramiding can work profitably because forex prices trend in a qualitatively different manner to (for example) 'trends' of blacks and reds at roulette, i.e. any edge necessarily lies beyond the MM. This is similar to the 'scaling in' illusion that was addressed earlier: for the subsequent position(s) to be justifiable, they must be on-balance profitable in their own right, otherwise they reduce eventual bottom line, regardless of whether they're being 'funded' by prior wins (the "market's money") or not.

If you see unbanked profit as being expendable (the "market's money"), then you're effectively trading to achieve breakeven, rather than attempting to maximize your profits.


Myth # 10. That exiting either a trade, a session, or a period (e.g. week, month, year) because one is ahead, P/L-wise, will improve one's eventual bottom line.
Unless there's statistical proof that market probabilities are about to become less favorable, quitting merely because you're ahead (to avoid "pushing your luck") is necessarily based on superstitious fear. Everything else being equal, there's a 50/50 probability of your gain increasing or decreasing, just as there is at any other time. Again, market behavior and probabilities are not going to change merely because one insignificant retail trader has had a recent winning or losing streak. Unless serial correlation has been proven statistically, each situation represents either an independently valid opportunity — or not — regardless of the P/L of recent trades.


Myth # 11. That a simple ('KISS') strategy is more likely to be profitable than a more complex one.
To be fair, it depends what is meant by 'simple'. Many simple strategies can be coded as EAs, yet very few EAs are long-term profitable. The decisions made by many expert (discretionary) traders are context-specific, and take a large number of factors into account, and are therefore not necessarily 'simple'.

To state the obvious, how simple or complex a strategy might be, is irrelevant. Profit is the ultimate, and universally accepted, goal.


Myth # 12. That some Martingale-based trading systems are superior to others.
The overriding factor behind all Martingale variants is the MM, or specifically the 'death sequence'. No amount of testing can determine (without a prohibitively high amount of statistical error) the likelihood of whether an extremely low probability event will occur sooner, rather than later. From this standpoint, all Martingale systems have an approximately equal probability as to when they will implode, and of course (because of their inherent recovery algo) all of them will remain profitable until that point. Hence all Martingale systems are essentially created equal.

Every Martingale variant aimed at mitigating risk incorporates a tradeoff that has a commensurate downside:

 

1. Using a more benign sizing progression (than doubling) cripples the recovery rate, i.e. necessitates >1 winning trade to return to breakeven.
2. Limiting the number of progression steps does likewise (e.g. if we cap the number of steps at 5, then it takes 31 wins @ 1 unit, instead of just 1 win @ 32 units, to recover from 5 consecutive losses).
3. Starting the progression with a tiny position size reduces return in exactly the same proportion.
4. Withdrawing money as insurance against the death trade reduces the funds needed to accommodate a given number of progression steps (and of course there's no guarantee that the death trade won't occur before the withdrawal). And if position size is based on account equity, then it will lower future returns also.

Another widely believed myth is that progressive staking systems can somehow improve overall expectancy (see rebuttal in myth #2). The mathematical reality is that they merely create a higher average bet/position size, which (exponentially) increases risk of ruin. The longer you trade using martingale, the greater the risk of encountering the 'death sequence'.

If you have a already have a strategy (entries+exits) that delivers positive expectancy, then martingale will not improve it; and if you don't have such a strategy, then martingale will not provide it. Or to put it simply, it's better to trade profitably and safely, than profitably with unnecessarily high risk.


[EDIT] Added some more myths......


Myth # 13. That a good system should be able to be transplanted onto a different timeframe, and still remain profitable.
Markets may be 'fractal' to some extent, but the price patterns on longer timeframes are qualitatively different to those on shorter ones. This is likely caused by factors like macroeconomics, cross section of participants, greater collective averaging, liquidity needed by heavyweight players, relative effect of news announcements, session considerations, etc.

Also, the shorter the trading horizon, the more significant that costs and slippage (relatively) become.


Myth # 14. That it's preferable to focus on one or two major pairs.
Not necessarily. Pairing the most negatively correlated currencies (the strongest against the weakest) delivers the best probability of catching strong, clean moves. This applies due to the triangular equilibrium (e.g. GBP/USD x USD/JPY = GBP/JPY) that is always maintained. Hence if GBPUSD and USDJPY are both trending upward, then GBP > USD > JPY, and hence GBPJPY will be trending upward even more steeply.


Myth # 15. That profitable trading is 90% mindset.
If method was unimportant, then EAs would, on average, outperform human traders. In any case, it's impossible to quantify the relationship that exists between Elder's three Ms: method (the strategic rationale behind entries and exits), money management (position sizing), and mindset (the emotional qualities needed to consistently execute the method). If one is to trade profitably, then all three are essential prerequisites: method = 100%, MM = 100%, mindset = 100%. Any weakness in mindset negates the efficacy of method, but mindset in itself can not compensate for deficiencies in method. Overleveraging can cause irretrievable drawdown despite having a profitable method (more info here). Hence all three are 100% important.

The "90% mindset" myth is possibly perpetuated by traders who attribute their failure to an obvious inability to remain disciplined, but while the ill-discipline was in fact masking an impotent method.


Myth # 16. That P/L-based trade management can provide an edge.
Unless backed by technical or statistical criteria, trade management strategies like moving SL to breakeven, or trailing a SL, do not in themselves provide an edge. They are merely a "feel good" measure that the market takes no cognizance of. The key measure is whether — over a great many trades — any reduction in risk compensates for profit that is forfeited by winners that are cut off prematurely, due to the tighter SL allowing them less room to move.

It is arguably better to plan the trade ahead of time, including predetermined SL and TP levels, when emotions are less compelling. Subsequently, unless it can be shown objectively that market probabilities have meanwhile altered, there is no valid reason to adjust these levels while the trade is in progress.

Extending this generalization, unless you have a proven statistical or technical reason for performing any action, you are merely guessing, and therefore gambling.

Traders who mention concepts like a "free trade" or the "market's money" are making decisions based on their P/L rather than market behavior/probabilities.


Myth #17. That losses are the trader's fault, rather than the market's fault.
Losses are an inevitable by-product of statistical fluctuation, and hence every trader/system will encounter them. The trader is at fault only when he fails to follow his plan, regardless of the outcome (win or loss) of a trade.

It is only the possibility of loss that creates the opportunity for the winners that occur. Without some kind of risk, no return is possible. (Explained well by alphaomega here).


Myth #18. That setting daily, weekly, etc profit goals or targets is a good idea.
Not necessarily true. The trader who does this is effectively attempting to impose his own P/L expectation onto the market. For many successful traders, income doesn't always come as a consistent ‘X pips per day’; they have days that exceed their average, and unprofitable days, also.

Traders who shut up shop because a goal has been met may miss additional valid setups. And conversely, if a trader falls behind his target, he must either set a more realistic target (proving that the original target was worthless); or he must overtrade or overleverage himself, in an attempt to reach his goal.


Myth #19. That adding more filters to a chart, to eliminate unprofitable entry signals, will improve one's overall 'edge'.
Adding more filters may ultimately eliminate more profitable entry signals than losing ones.

Another key consideration is dependency. For example, all indicators are ultimately derived from price (and in some cases, volume). Hence adding more indicators to the same timeframe chart will not necessarily provide independent confirmation, nor add value. Ultimately one must enter every move on a certain candle, and one can enter on an earlier or later candle by simply re-calibrating any existing indicators.

Non-linear indicators (which aim to reduce lag and overshoot, without compromising smoothness) are not necessarily superior to conventional indicators. Attempting to enter earlier into a move can mean that the entry catches a minor correction in the trend, rather than the desired full-scale reversal.


Myth # 20. That newcomers fail because they jump from system to system.
Sure, it's necessary to test a system for long enough to achieve statistical validity. But if a system/strategy/approach/concept is impotent -- i.e. it fails to address a real market inefficiency -- then persevering with it indefinitely will never make it profitable (see this!!). Hence an aspiring trader must be willing to try different approaches until he finds one that both suits his personality, and is also robust enough to be safely and dependably profitable over many years' worth of changing markets. Sensible use of a simulator, and testing multiple systems simultaneously, can help to expedite the process. Any system/strategy/approach/concept should be considered impotent until proven otherwise.


Myth # 21. That demo trading is pointless, because it doesn't test the trader's emotions.
The whole point of demo trading is to test a strategy objectively, without the results being distorted by emotional decision making.
Trading an unproven strategy live can cause a lack of confidence in the strategy, especially if losses occur, and lead to emotionally-based trading decisions.

Obviously demo trading is futile if the br0ker's test data (including costs and slippage) is inaccurate; or if the trader loses motivation and fails to apply the strategy consistently.

For some traders, microlots (10 cents/pip) might not test their emotions any more than demo. Each individual has a threshold position size where emotions start to affect his decision making (it's probably lower than many newcomers think! )

Demo accounts are also essential for debugging EAs.


Myth # 22. That markets are efficient to the point that all price movement is a completely random walk.
If that was true, then all types of analysis would be futile, all systems would have a long term expectancy of zero (ignoring costs), hence all P/L would be completely fortuitous, and ALL traders (given the erosion caused by transaction costs) would eventually lose.

Here is some evidence/examples of non-randomness:
 the large price spikes that coincide with high impact news announcements
 the price stabilization/profit taking that tends to occur in the wake of a news spike
 that traders tend to place their stops just outside swing points
 that heavyweights occasionally exploit these stops, in their search for liquidity (colloquially "stoploss hunting")
 that volatility frequently shrinks significantly as the market awaits a big news announcement
 that volatility otherwise follows fairly consistent patterns depending on the time of the day
 statistically, daily highs/lows of major pairs occur more frequently around certain times of the day (i.e. are not evenly distributed across the 24 hours)
 that price frequently stalls, and reverses, at certain key levels, which tells us that higher volumes of limit orders frequently cluster in predictable zones
 that higher volume (on shorter TFs) -- even local tick volume -- often signposts the start of a move; or imminent exhaustion (move is about to end)
 trapped trader behavior, creating turncoat (or 'flipover') S/R patterns during strong intraday moves
 that price invariably follows a repeating consolidation-breakout-move-consolidation-etc pattern, on all timeframes
 that longer term trends coincide with obvious macroeconomic factors (most notably, divergent CB monetary policy between the two currencies in the pair)
 correlations that exist between risk-on/risk-off in other markets and forex safe haven flows
 correlations between commodity prices and forex (e.g. WTI price vs CAD)
 consistently different ADRs for different pairs (compare GBPNZD with EURGBP, for example)
 different correlations between currencies (EUR/CHF correlation pattern is very different to EUR/USD, for example)
 patterns created by profit taking, as price approaches the weekend

However, the fact that non-randomness (or "inefficiencies") exist doesn't automatically mean that it's always possible for the retail trader to exploit them profitably. Spikes that occur the instant that red news is announced is one such example.

Conversely, to whatever extent inefficiencies like those listed are exploitable, and to the point that transaction costs are overcome, it is mathematically possible to profit systematically from trading.

In reality, "randomness" is a euphemism for either a lack of information; or a lack of knowledge about what information is available, and how to use it profitably.


Myth # 23. That a holy grail exists.
Every method has its Achilles heel — market conditions that are unsuitable — and is therefore prone to occasional losses. In general, return is impossible
without some kind of risk. Perfection can never be achieved simply because, at any point, the market is a mix of anonymous participants whose agendas are unknown. It only takes one large order, or one 'black swan' event (e.g. an unscheduled news announcement), to upset even the most 'perfect' technical strategy. Hence the need to manage risk.

The best that any (retail) trader can hope for is an edge, and the discipline needed to execute it consistently. An edge is ultimately determined by how heavily/frequently a trader is net long while price is rising, and net short when price is falling. In other words, the more accurately a trader times his entries and exits relative to market reversals, the more pips he banks. Nothing (MM, R:R, perfectly disciplined execution, positive attitude, etc) can overturn this fact.

If a claim being made about a system seems too good to be true, be wary of the egotist or the system seller. Systems with win rates, or even profit factors (PF is the product of win rate and average RR), that are absurdly high, are almost certainly being propped up by MM that will eventually prove unsustainable (martingale is a good example). Some info on how to interpret performance statistics here.


Myth # 24. That forex is a scam.
It's true that some br0kers cheat their clients, and that many vendors sell impotent EAs, signals, systems and indicators, and education that is effectively worthless. It's also true that heavyweight players attempt to manipulate prices in the hope of maximizing their profit (although manipulation can create recurring patterns that are potentially exploitable -- see myth #22). However, beyond this, at best spot forex is merely a decentralized market that facilitates the trading of one currency for another. At worst, it is no more sinister than casinos or lotteries: you choose to speculate, and you are responsible for the decisions that you make. Many people fall victim to their own greed, laziness and ignorance. Successful trading is a highly nuanced art, and there is no substitute for knowledge and hands-on experience. While educators can provide you with fresh ideas to test, ultimately the only person who can teach you to trade profitably is YOU.


And, finally.........

Myth # 25. Trading is about making money.
Trading is not so much about making money; it's ultimately about making correct decisions. If you consistently make good decisions, your account will grow. But if you chase after money, you'll almost certainly end up making poor decisions. (thanks to Seneca_pilot for contributing this)

It follows that the more you enjoy the actual process of trading, the more successful you're likely to be. And maintaining focus on the process can potentially help you to remain less emotionally attached to the money itself. Decisions should ultimately be made around market behavior and probabilities, not your P/L.

Amateur traders are impressed by high returns, whereas professionals focus more on managing risk. Quoting return by itself is meaningless, as it is a function of risk, payoff, MM and trade frequency (explained here).

____________________

NOTE: there seems to be confusion as to exactly what is intended to be true and false. The myths in blue typeface are FALSE statements, and the black text underneath attempts to explain why. For example:

Myth. Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
The reality is that Santa doesn't even exist.
Attached File
http://cdn.assets.forexfactory.net/i...attach/xls.gif Martingale comparison.xls 125 KB | 876 downloads | Uploaded Oct 22, 2012 9:00pm

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

We've all been eagerly waiting to see them: Venezuela's crisp,brand new yet soon to be hyperinflated with many more zeros banknotes, and finally, after various failed attempts to deliver the new bills to Caracas (which according to Maduro were at least partially aborted due to pesky CIA meddling) they have arrived. And they are vertical.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...var%201_0.jpeg
A new bank note of 500 Bolivars held outside a bank in Caracas. Jan. 16, 2017.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...var%202_0.jpeg
A new bank note of 5,000 Bolivars outside a bank in Caracas. Jan. 16, 2017.
Eager to get their hands on the new currency, AP writes that Venezuelans stood in long ATM lines Monday to take out new, larger-denominated bills "that President Nicolas Maduro hopes will help stabilize the crisis-wracked economy." Of course, they will do no such thing as the pieces of paper in circulation have absolutely no bearing on the underlying economy, or its hyperinflation, but it will take at least several more shipments of new banknotes before the Maduro figures this out.


As a reminder, in taking a page out of the Indian demonetization playbook, Maduro last month said he was scrapping circulation of the most used bill, the 100-bolivar note, and replacing it with new bills ranging from 500 to 20,000 bolivars.

The local were appalled. Residents in Caracas expressed shock at seeing bills with so many zeros — a sign of how worthless the bolivar has become amid triple-digit inflation and a collapse in foreign exchange reserves that has led to severe food shortages.

Our advice: get used to it - the fun is only just starting. Ask Zimbabwe.

"I never thought I'd have such a big bill in my hands," Milena Molina, a 35-year-old sales clerk, said as she inspected crisp, new 500-bolivar notes she had just withdrawn. "But with the inflation we're suffering, the notes we had weren't worth anything and you always had to go around with huge packages of bills."
The Weimar Republic agrees.

Monday's rollout of the first batch of imported notes came weeks later than the government had originally promised. Maduro last month ordered the 100-bolivar note to be withdrawn from use well before the replacement bills were ready, leading to widespread chaos as Venezuelans rushed to spend the bills before they were taken out of circulation. With cash running out, looting and protests were widespread - although they were widespread before the currency exchange too, so there wasn't much of a difference - and Maduro had to backtrack. On Sunday, he extended for the third time, until Feb. 20, the deadline for the 100-bolivar note to remain legal tender.

While the new denominations should make cash transactions easier the relief may be short-lived: since the largest, 20,000-bolivar note is worth less than $6 on the widely used black market, Maduro already has to order a fresh batch with at least one more zero. With inflation forecast by the International Monetary Fund to hit four digits this year, few economists expect the currency to rebound any time soon.

Seeking to combat the black market, the government on Monday inaugurated four currency exchange houses near the border with Colombia where Venezuelans will be able to purchase Colombian pesos at a favorable exchange rate of 4 pesos per bolivar. The bolivar currently is worth just a quarter of that amount at exchange houses over the border in Colombia.

And while on the surface this risk-free arbitrage guaranteeing 400% returns would be a slam-dunk trade, there are two problems.

First, while Gov. Jose Vielma Mora of Tachira state said the Venezuelan central bank has at its disposal a large amount of pesos to meet what is expected to be strong demand for hard currency, purchases would be capped at between $200 and $300. A second, and bigger proble, is that it was hard to find anyone Monday who had managed to buy pesos.

Opponents of Maduro said that in trying to set an exchange rate for pesos, authorities are paving the way for corruption, saying only certain individuals and companies close to the government will be able to purchase them at the official rate. They are, of course, right.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ops+to+zero%29

Tucker Carlson delved into a discussion with Jehmu Greene, frontrunner to become the next shill to head up the DNC, and got very specific when it came to the issue of drug prices and Trump's proposal to import American made drugs from Canada, because our country is partly run by the big pharma industrial complex. The results were telling. Notice every time Jehmu blinks she is, in fact, telling a bald faced lie.


Partisan politics rules the day. What's good for the American people, naturally, are secondary concerns to these retrograde water carriers.



Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Let's Hope this will not repeat again FYI, attached file.

Good Morning

I just woke up for about one hour to see the Europe Open and I see that the markets might be heading down so we probably have for the moment Risk Off.

Gold Futures up and USD/JPY is down.

5 Minute chart on USD/JPY

http://finviz.com/forex_charts.ashx?t=USDJPY&tf=m5

5 Minute chart on US Dollar Index

http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=DX&p=m5


Benjaminis

Good Day Benjamin & everyone else.

Thank you for the heads up.

I entered a few trades +/- 3hours ago. $650 on one account and $510 on other account.
Waited for retracement, but did not retrace that far, so entered another position on your post.

Will reply before end of day on posts.