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.

MadMarketScientist

I Can't Believe They Took Away My 400:1 Leverage

Recommended Posts

New realities are setting in as the latest regulations come into effect.

 

Have you been getting emails from your forex brokers? The 50:1 (or lower) leverage is about to take hold here shortly.

 

Funny to think at one time we had 400:1 -- which was completely ridiculous and a marketing gimmick but that has slowly been stripped down. I personally still feel there is more than enough leverage being given, and actually think 10:1 in forex would be perfectly workable for most strategies unless you're doing something more exotic.

 

What about those of you who pushed your accounts outside of the U.S. when the prior round of regulations took away hedging and added that FIFO rule -- many went to the UK offices and others but it appears that the major US brokers are having to bring you back to the U.S. due to the new regulations.

 

Anyone expecting any changes as a result for forex? Personally I think maybe it gets rid of some of the really small players, the ones who open accounts for $25 or $200 hoping to make it rich and usually just wipe that out in a few days. Otherwise I'm not forseeing any real changes to our trading.

 

I've been doing more CME FX Futures of late anyway personally.

 

Good trading to all!

 

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...10:1 in forex would be perfectly workable for most strategies unless you're doing something more exotic.

 

10:1 would not be enough for me, and I don't do anything particularly exotic. Let me explain...

 

For this example, we'll just use a $10,000 account...

 

I just glanced at the EUR/USD quote, which is currently 1.35912...

 

So let's say I want to risk just 1% of my account on a position with an intial risk of just 10 pips...

 

That would allow me a position size of 100,000 units...

 

With the current EUR/USD value at 1.35912, that means a position size of $135,912...which would require 13.4912:1 leverage.

 

Of course, with the same situation, if you risked 2% of your account on the position, that would require 26.9824:1 leverage...

 

Or, if you had an initial risk of 5 pips, and risked 1% on the trade, that would also require 26.9824:1...

 

And these examples are just one position...if you had multiple positions on at the same time, that would require more.

 

Just my :2c:...or maybe more like $0.001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...EUR/USD...is currently 1.35912...

 

...13.4912:1 leverage...

 

...26.9824:1 leverage...

 

I just glanced back at this thread and realized I made a typo...

 

With the EUR/USD @ 1.35912, that would be 13.5912:1 and 27.1824:1 leverage...but you get the idea...LOL

 

(Sorry...I couldn't stand to just let it go...;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory,

 

Thanks for the input (and the correction - no worries there)

 

I guess I view it a bit different. 1 full sized EURUSD controls $100,000. With a $10K account you'd be able to purchase that at 10:1. If you lose just 25 pips that's a $250 loss or 2.5%. Not too bad but you can see if your risk was larger, like 40 or 50 pips you'd quickly get high on the risk side to 4% - 5%. And, if as you mention you wanted to trade multiples that could get to double digits.

 

That's why I think 10:1 can work just fine -- it forces you not to let things get out of hand. Not that it's a problem anyway with 25:1 and 50:1 being the numbers so they still have given everyone more than ample opportunity to blowout their accounts quickly :)

 

Anyway, we're coming at it from the same side -- the key no matter how you slice it is to keep your risk to 1% - 5% (absolute aggressive max) -- which is too easy to break when the leverage given is so high. I can virtually guarantee you people are putting up $1,000 now and trading 10 minis or 1 full size and losing 30% - 40% on their account in a single trade all the time at these brokers. Now they'll just bleed it out a bit slower - which is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new regulations really don't affect me as 50:1 has been my mainstay for quite a while. To be honest, I don't buy that leverage is the problem. The problem is rookie traders who have not taken the time to educate themselves in even the basics. The regs are really designed to protect people from themselves. That is not something I am a huge fan of in general but that is a different topic and outside the realm of this forum.

 

Traders who were blowing themselves out at 100:1 will do the same thing at the lower amounts...just with a slower bleed and without an entire paridigm shift, forced to the sidelines.

 

As for the question, I don't think there will be any large changes. For the majority of brokers, it will keep many $100.00 account balance traders out of the market. For example...at this moment, @ 50:1 it would take about $3170 to trade one standard of the GU.

 

Personally, I hope this forces many hobbyists to approach trading with a professional mindset so they can enjoy the fruits of what trading can give you.

 

The issue is also that all this can be revisited. We shall see what other regs come down the pipe.

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

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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