CBs do what is in their best interests Don't blame other people of you own poor trading, you will never learn to specyulate whilst you don't take responsibility for your own mistakes, it is up to you to protect you business, remember anything can and will happen in the markets. Cheers John Cheers John Cheers John
Ridiculous. If it's up to us, then why do we need police protection from robbers ? Robbers exists on the street as well as in the markets. Consequently they must be compelled to follow the same rules as everyone else. What happened with CHF was that the retail players were following the rules while the banks and others chose to dispense with the rules by deliberately turning off liquidity as a means of exploitation.
No, you're a total idiot if you think the SNB or any CB for that matter has to set their country's monetary policy around highly leveraged traders. That's just silly.
Exactly. I read already from a trader: "I came out of a meeting and saw what happened." If you trade high leveraged in forex you stay at your screen, you don't go anywhere or somebody else should monitor your position. It is crazy to trade high leveraged and then walk around a little bit. Many traders calculate how much money they can make with high leverage. Next time they should calculate too how much you can lose in high leveraged trading. And this is completely different from robbery. In trading two parties agree to make a deal. In a robbery only the robber agrees to rob you, you don't agree (I suppose) with this robbery.
In a robbery, only one party disregards the commonly and implicitly accepted contract of business and robs the other party blind. Since the contract was not honoured, the deal was off and the retail could get their money back. As the market was unjustifiably closed, all prices occurring after that were null and void.
Can you prove that the market was closed? I saw at dukascopy quotes every minute during the crash. Those who were short CHF had a contract with a counterparty. The fact that they were short proves that the counterparty honoured the deal to go short. But nobody had a commitment to be counterparty when the shorters wanted to pass the losses to someone else. That was another contract that had to be made. There was no contract at that moment. Nobody who was out of this market would be willing to be counterparty at that moment. So there were no offers. And probably 1000 times more people wanted to buy CHF than theer were sellers. That is not the same as an unjustifiable closing. I call it common sense from those who had no open position. Risc/reward was not reasonable to become counterparty. People should always have an exit scenario.
Yes I can prove it. I was not able to exit my long CHF to provide liquidity to others for almost half of a day. Further I was informed the market was suspended. If that wasn't market being closed, I don't know what was. Essentially the lost of liquidity was an artificial creation to force the price higher. Now we need to find out who shut the market and fine the crap out of them. Your risk/reward is quite useless if the counterparty has the option of shutting up shop at any moment of their choosing for any reason whatsoever, and for any duration they fancy.
No body expects a 2000pt move, they where likely setup for a 200pt fast move but never a 2000 it's totally unheard of so saying they're over leveraged is kinda silly. Is an unexpected event!
There were 2 groups of people who traded the CHF since 2012: people who have no clue about trading. The highest high for the last 3 years was 1.25 and the lowest low was 1.2. So the potential profit was limited to about 4%! Real traders need more volatility. people who knew something that others did not know (insider trading). Those who were long knew that this would happen. You never take a position in a market where the max range is 4%. Especially not if you see now what the risc was. The 4% range is also the reason why I told that the risc/reward ratio was not good. The huge losses confirm this. Even with a high leverage the potential profit was much smaller than the losses that occured.