OANDA Discussion | Page 200 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Oanda GM Discussion 0 replies

Oanda users - Oanda widening spreads 62 replies

Oanda order filling discussion 6 replies

OANDA Canada vs OANDA Corp. 4 replies

Euro/Dollar discussion 9 replies

Attachments: OANDA Discussion
Exit Attachments

OANDA Discussion

  • #3,981
  • Jan 23, 2015 1:44pm Jan 23, 2015 1:44pm
Quoting ForexOracle
{quote} Gosh!! Are people that naive? It amazes me!! Or should I say it disgusts me!! MM must have a deal with the devil to mesmerized people so they can't see the truth. What oanda did was to "forgive" negative balances. NEGATIVE balances....not losses. They did not forgave any margin call or losses from the event.....they pocket their clients margin calls and losses, as they always do. So after making a killing from their clients losses they decided to capitalize on negative balances. They are not stupid, negative balances are costly and...

Amazing, isn't it. Yeah, we lost $50M, we're just going to "forgive" it. lol. These people who haven't a clue are exactly the reason the NFA and CFTC feel we need to be regulated. Absolutely amazing.
  • #3,982
  • Jan 23, 2015 1:47pm Jan 23, 2015 1:47pm
They should pass a law requiring people to pass some type of exam before trading forex. Then they wouldn't feel the need to keep making trading conditions worse. Only people who obtain a certain grade can trade.
  • #3,983
  • Jan 23, 2015 1:55pm Jan 23, 2015 1:55pm
Quoting Profit Daily
They should pass a law requiring people to pass some type of exam before trading forex. Then they wouldn't feel the need to keep making trading conditions worse. Only people who obtain a certain grade can trade.
Haha!! Fuckin brilliant! Take it you got your arse shagged by the SNB last week ?
Where price is now, it has been before, and will be again.
  • #3,984
  • Jan 23, 2015 2:00pm Jan 23, 2015 2:00pm
Your butt is in your back...right?

So they got it!!

They got it good !!
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: oanda.jpeg Size: 220 KB
So, you think you have rights? LOL
  • #3,985
  • Jan 23, 2015 2:11pm Jan 23, 2015 2:11pm
Quoting ForexOracle
Your butt is in your back...right? So they got it!! They got it good !! {image}
Yup.About right. I've steered clear of CHF and JPY for ages now but I have an account with Dukascopy as well as Oanda and back in October I got an email from them saying they were reducing EUR/CHF leverage to 1.10.
I remember thinking at the time I should really start loading the shorts here but was just too lazy and used my margin elsewhere.If I had done I may have been thinking about retiring soon! Ho hum
Where price is now, it has been before, and will be again.
  • #3,986
  • Jan 23, 2015 2:25pm Jan 23, 2015 2:25pm
At the end of the day, you have to realise that the salvation army don't run a brokerage so if you want to trade you've got to pick the best of a bad bunch.And thats OANDA in my opinion.In 10 years of trading I've tried shit loads and none come near. Yes,they have their faults but compared to whats left they shine like a fuckin beacon.
Where price is now, it has been before, and will be again.
  • #3,987
  • Jan 23, 2015 2:31pm Jan 23, 2015 2:31pm
Quoting Jenx
{quote} Haha!! Fuckin brilliant! Take it you got your arse shagged by the SNB last week ?
Umm..no. I haven't traded any CHF pairs since the peg. What's the point? Better spreads on the crosses. If I thought AUDCHF was going to move, I would trade EURAUD, etc. Once my broker opened CHF back up at about 9am that day, I did increase my account 26% selling CHF though. What about my statement would make you think I lost on CHF? The statement was aimed at all the clueless who think OANDA and FOREX>COM are good brokers because they forgave negative balances. It's ok Mr. Jones you had $50K and now you're negative $150K, don't worry about the $150K, we'll just keep the $50K. Wonder how much they made on that day?
  • #3,988
  • Jan 23, 2015 2:43pm Jan 23, 2015 2:43pm
Quoting Profit Daily
{quote} Umm..no. I haven't traded any CHF pairs since the peg. What's the point? Better spreads on the crosses. If I thought AUDCHF was going to move, I would trade EURAUD, etc. Once my broker opened CHF back up at about 9am that day, I did increase my account 26% selling CHF though. What about my statement would make you think I lost on CHF? The statement was aimed at all the clueless who think OANDA and FOREX>COM are good brokers because they forgave negative balances. It's ok Mr. Jones you had $50K and now you're negative $150K, don't worry about...
They may be MM'S but they have to have liquidity providers.If I'm not mistaken Oandas is Morgan Chase. I'm sure Oanda took a hit last week,as did all the others, just they can afford to off-load the negative balances into their positive portfolios. I nearly opened an account with the reputable SaxoBank end of last year. Escaped that one.
Where price is now, it has been before, and will be again.
  • #3,989
  • Jan 23, 2015 4:29pm Jan 23, 2015 4:29pm
Quoting Jenx
{quote} They may be MM'S but they have to have liquidity providers.If I'm not mistaken Oandas is Morgan Chase. I'm sure Oanda took a hit last week,as did all the others, just they can afford to off-load the negative balances into their positive portfolios. I nearly opened an account with the reputable SaxoBank end of last year. Escaped that one.
Not correct.

Again people seem not to grasp how MM operate.

MM only need LPs when the majority of their customers are making money.

Do you believe the majority of retail traders win all the time?
So, you think you have rights? LOL
  • #3,990
  • Jan 23, 2015 6:03pm Jan 23, 2015 6:03pm
Quoting ForexOracle
{quote} Not correct. Again people seem not to grasp how MM operate. MM only need LPs when the majority of their customers are making money. Do you believe the majority of retail traders win all the time?
Actually you are wrong.

MM are constantly hedging their risk which is based on their exposure to a specific market, and the amount of capital that they hold to guard against losses. These capital requirements are set by the regulators, and they must maintain a minimum amount of risk absorbing capital in order to comply with rules.

The MM models hedge in several ways.

They hedge their books (basically a portfolio of clients exposure) when they exceed their exposure threshold, and they hedge their exposure to certain instruments.

MM has several books, clients go into different books based on whether they are consistent winners or losers. Those clients who are winners go in the 'marked risk' book, and their net positions are hedge immediately in the market because as winners they present a risk to the companies capital. The 'normal' book is the others, i.e. the losers. For the most part the losers are clumped together and allowed to fight it out amongst themselves with the broker acting as counter-party to their trades. But these guys are also hedged as well, but only when their net exposure exceeds the risk tolerance of the company, which is based on capital requirements, which is set by their regulator.

Each instruments also has a maximum level of risk that a broker will assume, so if the brokers exposure is too high to a certain instrument, they will hedge in the market.
  • #3,991
  • Jan 23, 2015 7:27pm Jan 23, 2015 7:27pm
Quoting coliseum100k
Anybody get Oanda's email? Was titled "URGENT: 100% MARGIN REQUIREMENT - CHF, SEK, NOK ON JAN 26 2015 4:00PM EST"
I have not received it. Would it be because I do not trade any CHF pairs? To those who got the email: do you guys trade CHF?
  • #3,992
  • Jan 23, 2015 10:18pm Jan 23, 2015 10:18pm
Quoting verv
{quote} Actually you are wrong. MM are constantly hedging their risk which is based on their exposure to a specific market, and the amount of capital that they hold to guard against losses. These capital requirements are set by the regulators, and they must maintain a minimum amount of risk absorbing capital in order to comply with rules. The MM models hedge in several ways. They hedge their books (basically a portfolio of clients exposure) when they exceed their exposure threshold, and they hedge their exposure to certain instruments. MM has several...
Risk on exposure to a specific market?

You are either drinking or trying to make somebody drink the brokers Kool aid

Market makers as the name says ARE THE MARKET to their clients.

Positions are offset internally. So again what market?

Their only risk is generated by their own clients, if they pile up on the right side.

Regulations deal with total capital and margin.

Brokers have to have 20M to open shop, money to make their clients whole and cover the margin percentages......thats it.

Since the majority of traders lose, it is rare to see those items in danger.

The only situation where they may have to hedge via LP is if a big customer disrupt the internal offset.

It has to be a really big order to do it.

The MM may get cot once and hedge, but I bet they will not get cot a second time and the trouble maker will be asked " politely" to take its business somewhere else.
So, you think you have rights? LOL
  • #3,993
  • Jan 23, 2015 10:20pm Jan 23, 2015 10:20pm
Just got an email from OANDA saying that the NFA increased margin requirement to 3% for JPY and AUD, effective monday. Fucking nanny state. Time to find an offshore broker.
  • #3,994
  • Jan 23, 2015 11:55pm Jan 23, 2015 11:55pm
Quoting myelbow4
Just got an email from OANDA saying that the NFA increased margin requirement to 3% for JPY and AUD, effective monday. Fucking nanny state. Time to find an offshore broker.
I received the same "urgent" email. So effective immediately we now have 20:1 leverage on CHF pairs and 33:1 leverage on AUD and JPY pairs ! What a crock o'$hit !The NFA is trying to push traders into futures but ironically some futures brokers will let you day trade S&P eminis for $400-500. That's about 200:1 leverage. ??
  • #3,995
  • Jan 24, 2015 12:28am Jan 24, 2015 12:28am
Quoting myelbow4
Just got an email from OANDA saying that the NFA increased margin requirement to 3% for JPY and AUD, effective monday. Fucking nanny state. Time to find an offshore broker.
But this is only for US clients of Oanda right? Or is it for the world?
  • #3,996
  • Jan 24, 2015 3:11am Jan 24, 2015 3:11am
Quoting AthrunZala
{quote} But this is only for US clients of Oanda right? Or is it for the world?
No one gives a crap about the US or NFA.
  • #3,997
  • Edited 8:33am Jan 24, 2015 4:48am | Edited 8:33am
Quoting ForexOracle
{quote} Risk on exposure to a specific market? You are either drinking or trying to make somebody drink the brokers Kool aid Market makers as the name says ARE THE MARKET to their clients. Positions are offset internally. So again what market? Their only risk is generated by their own clients, if they pile up on the right side. Regulations deal with total capital and margin. Brokers have to have 20M to open shop, money to make their clients whole and cover the margin percentages......thats it. Since the majority of traders lose, it is rare to see...

They act as counterparty to the losing traders up until their risk threshold is breached. After this threshold is breached they hedge their overhead risk in the actual market.

I said the MMs only hedge for two reasons 1) when it exceeds their maximum risk level, as determined by their risk absorbing capital, as mandated by their regulatory body (if they have a regulator), and 2) they hedge the book that contains the winner clients.

They don't hedge when they are already losing, how does hedging when they are already losing make any sense? You hedge to prevent the loss?

There is nothing more to it.

But don't take my word for it. Spreadbetters, are market makers, regulated in this country in the same way as any retail forex MM, and work in the exact same way as retail forex brokers.

Inserted Video


So can you give over now?

You are wrong, plain and simple.

Do your research.
  • #3,998
  • Jan 24, 2015 12:07pm Jan 24, 2015 12:07pm
Quoting verv
{quote} They act as counterparty to the losing traders up until their risk threshold is breached. After this threshold is breached they hedge their overhead risk in the actual market. I said the MMs only hedge for two reasons 1) when it exceeds their maximum risk level, as determined by their risk absorbing capital, as mandated by their regulatory body (if they have a regulator), and 2) they hedge the book that contains the winner clients. They don't hedge when they are already losing, how does hedging when they are already losing make any sense?...
Thats fine pal, you have the right to believe in what ever you choose to believe.

Even if you seem not to understand what you believe.

Quote
They act as counterparty to the losing traders up until their risk threshold is breached.

LOL!! You just contradicted yourself and showed you have no clue what you are talking about.

IF MM offset positions internally and they are counter parties of their clients, how a losing trader can generate any risk?

Every trader that loses generates revenues to the MM !!!!!!!!!!!

You don't know what you are talking about.
So, you think you have rights? LOL
  • #3,999
  • Jan 24, 2015 12:36pm Jan 24, 2015 12:36pm
Quoting ForexOracle
{quote} Thats fine pal, you have the right to believe in what ever you choose to believe. Even if you seem not to understand what you believe. {quote} LOL!! You just contradicted yourself and showed you have no clue what you are talking about. IF MM offset positions internally and they are counter parties of their clients, how a losing trader can generate any risk? Every trader that loses generates revenues to the MM !!!!!!!!!!! You don't know what you are talking about.
I think people are now convincing themselves their broker is OK. Bottom line is, the NFA has reduced the number of options in the US to five. They all suck. Your choice is to either go offshore, which, in my opinion, is actually a safer option at this point. These brokers are not regulated because they choose not to be. They make that choice so US citizens can trade. Once they are regulated, regardless of by whom, the NFA feels they have the almighty power to tell them what to do. The other choice is to not trade forex. I still don't understand how the NFA claims they are protecting us by requiring us to trade with the scam brokers in the US who have been fined over and over, do not allow them to offer segregated accounts, but yet there are well-regulated brokers worldwide who do protect client funds and we are not allowed to trade with them. How is that to our benefit. I would love an explanation from the NFA.
  • #4,000
  • Edited Jan 25, 2015 10:29am Jan 24, 2015 2:16pm | Edited Jan 25, 2015 10:29am
Quoting ForexOracle
You just contradicted yourself and showed you have no clue what you are talking about. IF MM offset positions internally and they are counter parties of their clients, how a losing trader can generate any risk? Every trader that loses generates revenues to the MM !!!!!!!!!!! You don't know what you are talking about.
It's not a contradiction, you are just too stupid to know otherwise.


Example:
The risk threshold of broker x, a market maker, is the equivalent $10 million.
This is set by the regulator (lets say the FCA) based on the amount of risk absorbing capital that company x holds to offset against losses.

Broker X clients are positioned as follows on EURUSD:
-66.6% of clients long = $30 million long on the eurusd
-33.3% of clients short = $15 million short on the eurusd
Net position of clients = $15 million net long.

Broker X, which act as counterparty to its clients on EURUSD is positioned as follows:
-Expose to 66.6% longs clients = $30 million, held as a short position by the broker
-Exposure to 33.33% short clients = $15 million, held as a long positions by the broker
Broker net exposure = $15 million net short

The brokers maximum risk it can act as counterparty to is $10 million.
$15 million of exposure - $10 million max. risk = $5 million above their risk threshold as set out by regulatory requirements

Broker x goes out and buys the equivalent of $5 million EURUSD to offset risk clients risk.
Broker x is now within defined risk limits, and in compliance with regulatory requirements.



How is that contradictory you idiot?

You literally don't have a clue.
4 traders viewing now