Thanks for this ... Iâve spent some time looking at some past examples of these sorts of situations in the ES, specifically 9/11 (happened outside RTH) and the âflash crashâ (happened during RTH). Iâm an automated systematic trader, and always have a working stop exit order in the market if Iâm holding a position. I looked at tick data at the time of these events to see whether or not my stop would have been filled in a reasonable way. After looking at the data, I came to the conclusion for both these past events that the market had behaved in an orderly enough manner that my working stop order would have been executed at a reasonable price. In the case of 9/11 for example, even as planes were hitting the towers OUTSIDE OF RTH, until the market lock was in place there was a two-sided market being made in the ES that would have allowed a reasonable exit (if your stop price was within the point before the market locked). In the âflash crashâ too, a working stop order would have got you out more or less where you had expected to exit (as it happens I was not holding a position at the time of the âflash crashâ; and in 2001, I wasn't trading). So, in the case of: - a highly liquid instrument (ES certainly fits the bill ⦠I donât know enough about CL to know whether the same arguments apply) and - at a time when liquidity is there (if a 9/11 type shock had happened in the ES at 20h00 EST instead of around 09h00 EST, the story with stop orders might have been different) and - having working stop orders in the market before the event occurs (again, joining a rush to exit with everyone else would be different) then ... ⦠IMO the drastic example you have outlined is most likely not a realistic scenario.
Thanks for the reply. I suspect before 9/11, the notion of jumbo jets smashing into a couple of skyscrapers in Manhattan wasn't a "realistic scenario" either. Btw, i was long ES and watching the screen just before the attacks. I was stopped out after the first crash, the market actually moved back up and then went into freefall after the second crash. This all took place in seconds to minutes. Now, if my stop had been much further out, i may not have been filled because they of course closed the market and in which case I would have had to wait till the market reopened to see what horrendous slippage i would incur.
August 2nd 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Apparently, oil prices immediately went from around $32 to $40 (+25%), but then collapsed to $22!! I don't have the tick data for this, so don't know the actual data points of the price path (i.e. did prices move immediately to $40 or were they going up in one dollar moves or whatever). Would be interesting to know if anyone has this info.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/278948-1990-vs-2011-what-we-can-learn-from-historic-oil-spikes http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
Hello first of all FX community! I'm new here and I have some questions regarding the Forex business. First of all, I've recently attended a 1-week course on FX (don't worry, it was free ). There, the trainer talked to us about the 3% stop-loss and 5% take-profit money management strategy. Also he talked briefly about the 2% (stop-loss) - 6% (TP) "shark" strategy. So basically if you trade 1 standard lot we will lose no more than 30 pips and win 50 pips if we "read the chart" correctly, if we use the 3% - 5% rule. What do you think of these options? Are they effective long term?
Yes, options are good for managing risks. Yes, they are effective long term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance)
Thanks. Yes, I agree that data would be interesting to see. Does this work as an idea? (1) The more actively-traded an instrument, the greater the number of market actors trading that instrument. (2) The greater the number of market actors trading an instrument, the broader the spectrum of actor responses to a newsworthy market event (firstly, as different actors learn the news at different times and secondly, as different actors can react differently to the same news anyway). (3) The broader the spectrum of actor responses, the more likely it is that a two-sided market will continue to be made during the period of time following a newsworthy market event (until such time as a market limit-down/up is put in place). (4) While a two-sided market is being made, a stop order reaching the market during that time has a chance of being filled at a price without extraordinary slippage. (5) So, for actively-traded instruments (at the actively-traded times) stops can work OK after news âshocksâ if either your order is already working or can get to the market during the two-sided market period. Also, your stop price must be close enough to avoid being caught the wrong-side of limit-up/down.