Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

jperl

What is DEMAND/SUPPLY volume?

Recommended Posts

This thread is started as a result of a short discussion by Tasuki in the Volume Spread Analysis posts 982 and 991 to quantify the concepts of DEMAND and SUPPLY volume. The problem arises on how to define DEMAND volume and SUPPLY volume. Some traders define trades made at the ask as DEMAND volume, trades made at the bid as SUPPLY volume. Other traders would say volume should be considered DEMAND only if there is an uptick in price and SUPPLY only if there is a down tick in price. If price does not change, then that trade is taken to be DEMAND volume if the last time price changed was an up tick and SUPPLY volume if the last time price changed was a down tick.

 

The former definition is used by Mister Ed in the following quote from the VSA thread

Let’s say there is a sequence thus:

1. Bid = 25

2. Ask = 50

3. Trade at 50 for 75 lots. (This is an aggressive buy – reported as a buy)

4. Bid is now 50

5. Ask = 75

6. Trade at 50 for 30 lots. (This is an aggressive sell – reported as a sell).

 

In that series of trades, trade 3 would be DEMAND volume of 75 lots because it occurred at the ask and trade 6 would be SUPPLY volume of 30 lots because it occurred at the bid.

 

For the alternative definition of DEMAND/SUPPLY (which I prefer) consider the following series of trades

1.Bid =25,Ask=50, trade at 25 for 25 lots

2 Bid=25,Ask=50, trade at 50 for 75 lots

3.Bid changes to 50, Ask changes to 75, trade at 50 for 30 lots

 

In this scenario, trade 2 would be DEMAND volume of 75 lots because there was an uptick from trade 1 from 25 to 50.

Trade 3 would also be DEMAND volume of 30 lots (even though it occurred at the bid at the same price as trade 2) because the last price change was an up tick(trade 2 after trade 1).

This is not a small difference in definition and is crucial for quantifying many of the ideas in VSA.

This thread is now open for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is started as a result of a short discussion by Tasuki in the Volume Spread Analysis posts 982 and 991 to quantify the concepts of DEMAND and SUPPLY volume. The problem arises on how to define DEMAND volume and SUPPLY volume. Some traders define trades made at the ask as DEMAND volume, trades made at the bid as SUPPLY volume. Other traders would say volume should be considered DEMAND only if there is an uptick in price and SUPPLY only if there is a down tick in price. If price does not change, then that trade is taken to be DEMAND volume if the last time price changed was an up tick and SUPPLY volume if the last time price changed was a down tick.

 

The former definition is used by Mister Ed in the following quote from the VSA thread

 

 

In that series of trades, trade 3 would be DEMAND volume of 75 lots because it occurred at the ask and trade 6 would be SUPPLY volume of 30 lots because it occurred at the bid.

 

For the alternative definition of DEMAND/SUPPLY (which I prefer) consider the following series of trades

1.Bid =25,Ask=50, trade at 25 for 25 lots

2 Bid=25,Ask=50, trade at 50 for 75 lots

3.Bid changes to 50, Ask changes to 75, trade at 50 for 30 lots

 

In this scenario, trade 2 would be DEMAND volume of 75 lots because there was an uptick from trade 1 from 25 to 50.

Trade 3 would also be DEMAND volume of 30 lots (even though it occurred at the bid at the same price as trade 2) because the last price change was an up tick(trade 2 after trade 1).

This is not a small difference in definition and is crucial for quantifying many of the ideas in VSA.

This thread is now open for discussion.

 

New thread! OK.

 

Just to reiterate Jerry - yes we are in complete disagreement about our definitions :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Jerry, and all, this thread should not be limited to just discussing the definition of bid / ask or Demand / Supply volume - I hope we can find more to discuss than just the definition.

 

But while we are on that subject I think it would be worthwhile finding out what definition is used in TradeStation, it is a popular package and be good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3. I have an issue with smart = big. Observation of the big-lot trades that go through suggests to me that the big lot traders are not necessarily “smartâ€Â. It is logical that smart = big, but in my experience, not all big = smart. This may be an issue with how the data is presented, and I would love input on this. I am only speaking of the ES, my current understanding is that a 100 lot buy (i.e. a buyer who hits the ask for 100) is reported as a 100 lot buy even if he buys from a split of sellers, say a 5, 10, 15, 10, 30, 20, 10). Another point is the software exists to allow trade size to be split, so instead of executing one lot of 200 near-simultaneous execution of 4 lots of 50 (for arguments sake) can be done instead. My broker even offers a humble trader like me an “iceberg†facility to split up my limit orders.

 

 

Glad you agreed with most of my post :D. This was a bit sloppy on my part. VSA tends to use 'smart money' as a type of catch all for the guys that are privy to stuff we dont know, it is kind of implied that they also have the guys that take massive positions. Really there is just a right side and a wrong side in the timeframe you trade!! As I mention now and then the commitment of traders report would indicate The % winners and losers don't really vary that much amongst the various market participants. In a nutshell I agree the big guys loose too. The way I see it (which maybe a bit different to the pure VSA view) is that there is 'smart money' that knows stuff we don't or simply has there own agenda. They are probably 'large'. Where I agree with you and perhaps stray from the pure VSA view is there are also a whole bunch of 'dumb' participants trading size too. Anyway I digress.

 

The thing you introduce is the other piece of information that we can use as traders. That is the order book. Basically its inventory the participants choose to advertise. Incidentally I think this is another area where people tend to use intuition and get it wrong. If you watch the order book price tends to move towards size not away from it. In fact the old timers say 'size trades to size'.

 

I think probably one of the key thing is how the advertised inventory (order book) reacts to the aggressive sellers. I have noticed a few things but I find it quite tricky sometimes. As yet I have never discovered a tape reader that can really explain it!

 

Anyway I hope we can get some practical application out of this stuff as it is unique market generated data.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who use Investor R/T software, you have a choice on how you break down volume, the Mister Ed version (bid/ask) or my version (uptick/downtick). Here is a quote from their site:

 

http://www.linnsoft.com/new/index86.html

The Volume Breakdown Indicator (VB) has been enhanced with an option to divide up volume by "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume". In the past, volume was always broken down between Ask Traded and Bid Traded volume. Now, the user has a choice of dividing up Buy and Sell volume as either "Ask Traded vs Bid Traded Volume" or "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume. When "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume" is specified, each trade that occurs on or after an uptick is placed in the buy volume category, while any trade that occurs on or after a downtick is considered in the sell volume category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you who use Investor R/T software, you have a choice on how you break down volume, the Mister Ed version (bid/ask) or my version (uptick/downtick). Here is a quote from their site:

 

http://www.linnsoft.com/new/index86.html

The Volume Breakdown Indicator (VB) has been enhanced with an option to divide up volume by "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume". In the past, volume was always broken down between Ask Traded and Bid Traded volume. Now, the user has a choice of dividing up Buy and Sell volume as either "Ask Traded vs Bid Traded Volume" or "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume. When "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume" is specified, each trade that occurs on or after an uptick is placed in the buy volume category, while any trade that occurs on or after a downtick is considered in the sell volume category.

 

 

As I have mentioned on the VSA thread, the most productive way forward is to illustrate these issues via observations on a chart with some realtime trades and get them posted so that all can benefit, who knows Sebastian and Co may decide to incorporate in their analysis and in any charting software they may be developing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, new thread and already I am learning! Jerry - thanks for the tip re option in IR/T - I will compare our two definitions and see the pros & cons for each.

 

BF and Monad - past bedtime here, will go through posts more thoroughly when fully awake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you who use Investor R/T software, you have a choice on how you break down volume, the Mister Ed version (bid/ask) or my version (uptick/downtick). Here is a quote from their site:

 

http://www.linnsoft.com/new/index86.html

The Volume Breakdown Indicator (VB) has been enhanced with an option to divide up volume by "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume". In the past, volume was always broken down between Ask Traded and Bid Traded volume. Now, the user has a choice of dividing up Buy and Sell volume as either "Ask Traded vs Bid Traded Volume" or "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume. When "Up Tick vs Down Tick Volume" is specified, each trade that occurs on or after an uptick is placed in the buy volume category, while any trade that occurs on or after a downtick is considered in the sell volume category.

 

Hi Jerry,

 

I have looked at both and uptick/downtick looks like a good 'proxy' for volume at bid/ask. While not identical they look very similar.

 

If you think about it price is likely to tick up to the ask and down to the bid. Of course you do get cases where this is not the case but on the whole the two look very similar. Tradestation offers this uptick downtick natively though there are indicators available to do @bid @ask.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. I cant post charts right now as they only accumulate the volume corectly in real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those of you who use TradeStation, according to epiktetos at post 12637 the following is the info about upticks vs down ticks:

 

"TS uses the following rules when assigning a tick to the reserved word UpTicks:An uptick is a tick whose price is higher than that of the previous tick of a different price. Thus, if tick 1 occurs at a given price, tick 2 occurs at a higher price, and tick 3 occurs at the same price as tick 2, both tick 2 and tick 3 are counted as upticks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF – interesting points about the “smart money†you make “that knows stuff we don't or simply has there own agenda†– yes agree with you on both. I also think there is less of it than perhaps we assume. I have heard figures bandied around that 85% of activity is related to smart money, the figures and definitions are vague (at least to my understanding) but I can’t think that number is anywhere near accurate.

 

It is important to differentiate between size and smart – there is plenty of big lots traders bumping up against big lot traders activity, and one, at least, has to be on the wrong side. The point you make about sometimes they just have their own agenda is true, in MP you would refer to it as the other timeframe trader I believe, and a lot of the time their activity in the smaller timeframe is not at all “smart†– “just get me set†would seem to be a better description of their activity sometimes.

 

Now the order book – trade towards size is very accurate. I have heard two good, plausible explanations. One is that if the price is moving up towards large offers it is because there is no point sticking in a limit bid and waiting to get set, the price is moving up so may as well pay the offer and get in, the reason there are large offers sitting there is because in an up move the sellers can afford to sit on the offer and wait, hence the market moves towards size. Sounds plausible. The other explanation I have heard is “herding the sheepâ€Â. Stick in big offers just above market to spoof it while getting filled on the bid with iceberg limit buys. Must be one of the few instances in the business world where stuff is advertised for sale with no intention of actually selling it. This second explanation is my preferred model.

 

It is very interesting when this herding is occurring. I am not much of a watcher of DOM beyond when I am executing my own orders, most of the time I am watching my charts instead. But there are times when the nature of the trade changes, it is hard to explain but the range/volatility contracts while volumes remain reasonably strong. Sure enough I will flick over to DOM and there they are, offers in the thousands just above the market offer. As the market ticks higher so do these large offers, close but tantalizingly out of reach! Call me a cynic, but worth a look.

 

-------

 

I am still pondering on the 2 definitions slugging it out at present. Each definition will give a unique view of the market activity – the two are going to be very similar overall but at times will be distinctly different, and I think these differences will be at key points. I think its all in the way the price reacts to what is going on, as always. I am yet to go through some playback charts and look at these differences but on the brief look I have had I have a sneaking suspicion that my conclusion is going to be that both definitions offer valuable insights and maybe there is a role for using both. Anyone else doing the same thing, be good to hear other input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting document on this subject.

 

Written by Richard Malato of MarketDelta.

 

It was posted on their website a couple of years ago. Don't know if it's still there, but you can at least read it here. :)

 

It gives you a thorough introduction to the microstructure of the auction process in the electronic markets and clearly describes the relationship between aggressive and passive traders.

 

Enjoy.

 

-Skog

MarketDelta_White_Paper.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
both definitions offer valuable insights and maybe there is a role for using both.

 

I think it would be interesting to see what it would look like if you only plotted volume that was hit at the ask AND the previous tick was an uptick and vice versa. Or take it even further, 3 upticks then then an ask getting hit. That to me would be a much better way to define an aggressive buyer or seller and then just view everything else as noise. I think the problem though for this is you would need a true tick feed and the way tradestation handles this it wouldn't even make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ed,

 

Why market moves to size I don't really bother myself too much about any more. Observation shows it does. (Though there are many interesting reasons put forward and I certainly like to hear them).

 

There is a particular type of order that doesn't show on the book but sits there all stealthy like. The good old stop. Guess what, every one who has been trading for a while knows exactly where those are likely to be situated....one obvious place is above/below previous swing highs and lows. This is why we see 'tests' and backing and filling it's the basis of why price moves how it does. It is simply seeking out orders.

 

Actually that bought about a paradigm shift in me (though I forget it often in day to day trading so it is not ingrained yet). Essentially rather than price 'bouncing off support' these areas where orders are bunched or likely to be bunched are actually magnets for price. Put another way on the whole price moves too support or resistance. This is subtle difference but is interesting and I think exploitable.

 

Just some more food for though though I guess we need to start looking for specifics that might help us see what is going on.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a couple of ES charts from this morning - the thing that cries out to me is that the price often drifts on a couple of ticks after the volume comes in. Oh and sometimes it comes in late. Any other observations welcome as this is quite experimental really. Edit: I added the arrows so you could see the bars the peaks occurred on.

 

Cheers,

picture13.thumb.png.0b627840fc30e11abb87047a4f750864.png

picture14.thumb.png.a804d3d452112a14ffd88a5ac1297895.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heres a couple of ES charts from this morning - the thing that cries out to me is that the price often drifts on a couple of ticks after the volume comes in. Oh and sometimes it comes in late. Any other observations welcome as this is quite experimental really. Edit: I added the arrows so you could see the bars the peaks occurred on.

 

Cheers,

 

What charting software you using Blowfish.

 

Is this upvolume/downvolume analysis similar to Market Delta. and if so have you found it useful in your trading, in conjunction with VSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is volume@bid vs volume@ask on multicharts. Because each range bar is 1 tick wide it gives a visualisation of what volume was done at each level and what side. This chart is just a timing chart, currently I am looking at it after a turn to see if it shows something a 5 min and 2 min chart doesn't.

 

I am not using 'pure' VSA, though use price bars volume and channels for trade decisions. I have been observing this particular format of V@bis V@askfor a couple of weeks though have observed various delta configurations for a couple of years on and off.

 

My objective here is to see if this sort of resolution can nail turns a bit better. I think that delta lends itself better to fine resolution. The peaks on the charts would seem to confirm that. Its still quite experimental for me though I did scalp off footprint charts about 18 months (or maybe more) ago fairly successfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my motivations is to see if there is a way to read the tape without looking at the tape!

 

Another chart seem clear that someone decided support the market at the arrow. Is this useful to know? Maybe guess if there was potential support on my 5 min chart it might be. Of course this could still easily break later on.

picture15.thumb.png.ab34731c2b5ee2bb6d0981d16124dac6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is another thread I cannot keep up with!

 

Been some great points and ideas brought up, I think one of the reasons I cant keep up is there is so much to mull over. Thanks for the charts BlowFish. I too am experimenting with this stuff, there are many combinations and permutations to play with.

 

Can I return back to the opening discussion Jerry and I were having? I have had a few thoughts. In a nutshell. the definition I have been exclusively using (I wont define it again, its in the earlier posts) up until now is, to my mind, just a “pure†bid/ask volume. I don’t mean that in a value-judgement way, what I mean is it is just data without any interpretation placed on it. The bid was hit? That’s an aggressive sell. The ask was hit? That’s an aggressive buy. (Yeah, OK, "aggressive" is an interpretation, just call it a "buy" or "sell" if you prefer).

 

The uptick/downtick definition, on the other hand, places an interpretation on the data before it is presented. The bid was hit? Well, before we classify it, what was the most previous price movement, an up- or down-tick? A downtick? OK, well that bid getting hit is “supply†then. On the other hand, if the tick prior was an uptick and that bid getting hit does not represent a downtick then that bid getting hit is “demandâ€Â.

 

See the difference? I would suggest using the uptick/downtick to classify the buys and sells is one step removed from the data. Is there anything wrong with that? Well, actually, I think no, there isn’t; and in fact I think classifying the hits in this way can be extremely useful. DarthTrader has suggested another alternative way of presenting the data, this too looks interesting.

 

I have attached a chart showing yesterday’s ES (3-minute chart), with the panes below plotting, in order: total volume, straight bid/ask volume, uptick/downtick bid/ask volume. Close examination will show how the two definitions of bid/ask volume show the data differently.

5aa70e2a9de70_3minuteES10Dec2007.thumb.png.95aed5299ed47bfb688823d5699cde1c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to post a couple of 'failures' or 'anomalies' I closed my workspace before I did a screen capture <doh>. I'm going to slow up and mull over a few things. I cant remember what I have said already!

 

Did I mention price seems to often pass the level that sees the influx of 'paper' by a few ticks before it actually makes the turn? That's interesting. I wonder if its like some kind of test.

 

Cheers.

 

Edit: absolutely agree with what you said above btw. I think Aggressive is fine to use if we agree to define this as "is prepared to hit the bid/ask" or "is prepared to trade at the market". Doesn't mean she wants to punch the counter party :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I mention price seems to often pass the level that sees the influx of 'paper' by a few ticks before it actually makes the turn? That's interesting. I wonder if its like some kind of test.

 

Happens a lot - more to investigate.

 

Doesn't mean she wants to punch the counter party :D:D

 

Well, maybe sometimes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In TS, for the last week or so have been watching KlingerGoslin() and TickMoneyFlow() indicators plotted in the same subgraph using a TickBar data stream.

Scaling for both indicators is on NoAxis, Date range on screen.

KGI parameters are set fast (c,3,10,16,34,55, 13, 1, Darkgreen, Darkred).

(If you need I can post pictures or the version of the KGI I'm using)

 

Their movement is usually highly correlated but they also show some pretty neat divergences / disagreements, etc.

Is this a ‘squigly lines’ representation of what this topic is exploring?? Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In TS, for the last week or so have been watching KlingerGoslin() and TickMoneyFlow() indicators plotted in the same subgraph using a TickBar data stream.

Scaling for both indicators is on NoAxis, Date range on screen.

KGI parameters are set fast (c,3,10,16,34,55, 13, 1, Darkgreen, Darkred).

(If you need I can post pictures or the version of the KGI I'm using)

 

Their movement is usually highly correlated but they also show some pretty neat divergences / disagreements, etc.

Is this a ‘squigly lines’ representation of what this topic is exploring?? Thx

 

Most likely though it did not get me where I wanted to go. Maybe cause I just don't like squiggly lines! If you have a search over at ET for posts by 5pillars on delta you will get up to speed pretty quickly on delta divergence. I got the impression he's 'for real' though you never know for sure.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • Hello citizens of the U.S. The hundred year trade war has leaked over into a trading war. Your equity holdings are under attack by huge sovereign funds shorting relentlessly... running basically the opposite of  PPT operations.  As an American you are blessed to be totally responsible for your own assets - the govt won’t and can’t take care of you, your lame ass whuss ‘retail’ fund managers go catatonic  and can't / won’t help you, etc etc.... If you’re going to hold your positions, it’s on you to hedge your holdings.   Don’t blame Trump, don’t blame the system, don’t even blame the ‘enemies’ - ie don’t blame period.  Just occupy the freedom and responsibility you have and act.  The only mistake ‘Trump’ made so far was not to warn you more explicitly and remind you of your options to hedge weeks ago.   FWIW when Trump got elected... I also failed to explicitly remind you... just sayin’
    • Date: 7th April 2025.   Asian Markets Plunge as US-China Trade War Escalates; Wall Street Futures Signal Further Turmoil.   Global financial markets extended last week’s massive sell-off as tensions between the US and its major trading partners deepened, rattling investors and prompting sharp declines across equities, commodities, and currencies. The fallout from President Trump’s sweeping new tariff measures continued to spread, raising fears of a full-blown trade war and economic recession.   Asian stock markets plunged on Monday, extending a global market rout fueled by rising tensions between the US and China. The latest wave of aggressive tariffs and retaliatory measures has unnerved investors worldwide, triggering sharp sell-offs across the Asia-Pacific region.   Asian equities led the global rout on Monday, with dramatic losses seen across the region. Japan’s Nikkei 225 index tumbled more than 8% shortly after the open, while the broader Topix fell over 6.5%, recovering only slightly from steeper losses. In mainland China, the Shanghai Composite sank 6.7%, and the blue-chip CSI300 dropped 7.5% as markets reopened following a public holiday. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index opened more than 9% lower, reflecting deep concerns about escalating trade tensions.           South Korea’s Kospi dropped 4.8%, triggering a circuit breaker designed to curb panic selling. Taiwan’s Taiex index collapsed by nearly 10%, with major tech exporters like TSMC and Foxconn hitting circuit breaker limits after each fell close to 10%. Meanwhile, Australia’s ASX 200 shed as much as 6.3%, and New Zealand’s NZX 50 lost over 3.5%.   Despite the escalation, Beijing has adopted a measured tone. Chinese officials urged investors not to panic and assured markets that the country has the tools to mitigate economic shocks. At the same time, they left the door open for renewed trade talks, though no specific timeline has been set.   US Stock Futures Plunge Ahead of Monday Open   US stock futures pointed to another brutal day on Wall Street. Futures tied to the S&P 500 dropped over 3%, Nasdaq futures sank 4%, and Dow Jones futures lost 2.5%—equivalent to nearly 1,000 points. The Nasdaq Composite officially entered a bear market on Friday, down more than 20% from its recent highs, while the S&P 500 is nearing bear territory. The Dow closed last week in correction. Oil prices followed suit, with WTI crude dropping over 4% to $59.49 per barrel—its lowest since April 2021.   Wall Street closed last week in disarray, erasing more than $5 trillion in value amid fears of an all-out trade war. The Nasdaq Composite officially entered a bear market on Friday, sinking more than 20% from its recent peak. The S&P 500 is approaching bear territory, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has slipped firmly into correction territory.   German Banks Hit Hard Amid Escalating Trade Tensions   German banking stocks were among the worst hit in Europe. Shares of Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank plunged between 9.5% and 10.3% during early Frankfurt trading, compounding Friday’s steep losses. Fears over a global trade war and looming recession are severely impacting the financial sector, particularly export-driven economies like Germany.   Eurozone Growth at Risk   Eurozone officials are bracing for economic fallout, with Greek central bank governor Yannis Stournaras warning that Trump’s tariff policy could reduce eurozone GDP by up to 1%. The EU is preparing retaliatory tariffs on $28 billion worth of American goods—ranging from steel and aluminium to consumer products like dental floss and luxury jewellery.   Starting Wednesday, the US is expected to impose 25% tariffs on key EU exports, with Brussels ready to respond with its own 20% levies on nearly all remaining American imports.   UK Faces £22 Billion Economic Blow   In the UK, fresh research from KPMG revealed that the British economy could shrink by £21.6 billion by 2027 due to US-imposed tariffs. The analysis points to a 0.8% dip in economic output over the next two years, undermining Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ growth agenda. The report also warned of additional fiscal pressure that may lead to future tax increases and public spending cuts.   Wall Street Braces for Recession   Goldman Sachs revised its US recession probability to 45% within the next year, citing tighter financial conditions and rising policy uncertainty. This marks a sharp jump from the 35% risk estimated just last month—and more than double January’s 20% projection. J.P. Morgan issued a bleaker outlook, now forecasting a 60% chance of recession both in the US and globally.   Global Leaders Respond as Trade Tensions Deepen   The dramatic market sell-off was triggered by China’s sweeping retaliation to a new round of US tariffs, which included a 34% levy on all American imports. Beijing’s state-run People’s Daily released a defiant statement, asserting that China has the tools and resilience to withstand economic pressure from Washington. ‘We’ve built up experience after years of trade conflict and are prepared with a full arsenal of countermeasures,’ it stated.   Around the world, policymakers are responding to the growing threat of a trade-led economic slowdown. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announced plans to appeal directly to Washington and push for tariff relief, following the US administration’s decision to impose a blanket 24% tariff on Japanese imports. He aims to visit the US soon to present Japan’s case as a fair trade partner.   In Taiwan, President Lai Ching-te said his administration would work closely with Washington to remove trade barriers and increase purchases of American goods in an effort to reduce the bilateral trade deficit. The island's defence ministry has also submitted a new list of US military procurements to highlight its strategic partnership.   Economists and strategists are warning of deeper economic consequences. Ronald Temple, chief market strategist at Lazard, said the scale and speed of these tariffs could result in far more severe damage than previously anticipated. ‘This isn’t just a bilateral conflict anymore — more countries are likely to respond in the coming weeks,’ he noted.   Analysts at Barclays cautioned that smaller Asian economies, such as Singapore and South Korea, may face challenges in negotiating with Washington and are already adjusting their economic growth forecasts downward in response to the unfolding trade crisis.           Oil Prices Sink on Demand Concerns   Crude oil continued its sharp slide on Monday, driven by recession fears and weakened global demand. Brent fell 3.9% to $63.04 a barrel, while WTI plunged over 4% to $59.49—both benchmarks marking weekly losses exceeding 10%. Analysts say inflationary pressures and slowing economic activity may drag demand down, even though energy imports were excluded from the latest round of tariffs.   Vandana Hari of Vanda Insights noted, ‘The market is struggling to find a bottom. Until there’s a clear signal from Trump that calms recession fears, crude prices will remain under pressure.’   OPEC+ Adds Further Pressure with Output Hike   Bearish sentiment intensified after OPEC+ announced it would boost production by 411,000 barrels per day in May, far surpassing the expected 135,000 bpd. The alliance called on overproducing nations to submit compensation plans by April 15. Analysts fear this surprise move could undo years of supply discipline and weigh further on already fragile oil markets.   Global political risks also flared over the weekend. Iran rejected US proposals for direct nuclear negotiations and warned of potential military action. Meanwhile, Russia claimed fresh territorial gains in Ukraine’s Sumy region and ramped up attacks on surrounding areas—further darkening the outlook for markets.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.   Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • AMZN Amazon stock watch, good buying (+313%) toi hold onto the 173.32 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?AMZN
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.