Best Thread Capital Spreads
Kevin,
I'm (truly) not trying to be argumentative here, this is all discussion between people involved in the business of trading all looking to help each other out, but (there's always a but <g>) I'm interested in CS coming up with the answer or fixing what's broke - not amending my trading to compensate for what I see as the SB platform not doing what it's supposed to. I asked two simple questions, why isn't the spread centred and why doesn't the price move when the market does.
People SB, I would think, rather than D/A, because of cost - it would cost me rather a lot to learn the art of intraday trading via D/A, SB allows me to do the same for a few hundred quid... on the plus side as and when I consider myself to be competent I'll be able to move across to D/A, plonk a decent amount down, and I ought to be able to continue for fun and profit. SB is a proving ground where the spread ensures I have a slightly tougher time of making a profit - my margin should improve as and when I shift to D/A, 'train hard, fight easy' as the saying goes.
I see no reason why these two simple questions on spread centring and quote v price synchronising can't be easily answered, I'd imagine CS have an answer to both and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find they make perfect sense... your solution I see as accepting that the platform is flawed, that the SB companies are inclined to shade the odds, so we should move elsewhere - that presupposes that this isn't a simple technical problem that CS would happily fix were they made aware of it. It also presupposes that everyone who is SBing has the funds to move into D/A - I'd happily bet that a great many are SBing because of the low cost of entry, and they can't afford to get into D/A.... more likely they're hoping to win enough in SB to fund the move from winnings.
I'm (truly) not trying to be argumentative here, this is all discussion between people involved in the business of trading all looking to help each other out, but (there's always a but <g>) I'm interested in CS coming up with the answer or fixing what's broke - not amending my trading to compensate for what I see as the SB platform not doing what it's supposed to. I asked two simple questions, why isn't the spread centred and why doesn't the price move when the market does.
People SB, I would think, rather than D/A, because of cost - it would cost me rather a lot to learn the art of intraday trading via D/A, SB allows me to do the same for a few hundred quid... on the plus side as and when I consider myself to be competent I'll be able to move across to D/A, plonk a decent amount down, and I ought to be able to continue for fun and profit. SB is a proving ground where the spread ensures I have a slightly tougher time of making a profit - my margin should improve as and when I shift to D/A, 'train hard, fight easy' as the saying goes.
I see no reason why these two simple questions on spread centring and quote v price synchronising can't be easily answered, I'd imagine CS have an answer to both and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find they make perfect sense... your solution I see as accepting that the platform is flawed, that the SB companies are inclined to shade the odds, so we should move elsewhere - that presupposes that this isn't a simple technical problem that CS would happily fix were they made aware of it. It also presupposes that everyone who is SBing has the funds to move into D/A - I'd happily bet that a great many are SBing because of the low cost of entry, and they can't afford to get into D/A.... more likely they're hoping to win enough in SB to fund the move from winnings.
Oh,
I ought to say that I DO agree with your points generally - if you can afford D/A and are competent then there's no good reason to go via SB where the spread is greater and there are issues like this causing interruptions in the smooth flow of activity...trading is never going to improve by adding extra layers.
What I'm arguing with is whether we ought to just swap without cordially inviting a response to why these oddities should be apparent. Had SB company Terms & Conditions stipulated 'we'll only move the price when it suits' and 'the price might vary, depending on whether you stand to gain or not' then I'd not quibble about it. I do, genuinely, think CS might produce a convincing response.
I ought to say that I DO agree with your points generally - if you can afford D/A and are competent then there's no good reason to go via SB where the spread is greater and there are issues like this causing interruptions in the smooth flow of activity...trading is never going to improve by adding extra layers.
What I'm arguing with is whether we ought to just swap without cordially inviting a response to why these oddities should be apparent. Had SB company Terms & Conditions stipulated 'we'll only move the price when it suits' and 'the price might vary, depending on whether you stand to gain or not' then I'd not quibble about it. I do, genuinely, think CS might produce a convincing response.
Perrington
Active member
- Messages
- 145
- Likes
- 0
I also concur, unfortunately I have not accumulated enough in my trading bank to go direct access with a $200 stock. Anyway, GOOG is only an example, could be any of the markets.
Dave is correct in saying most people who are SBing dont have the financial clout to go DA, however, the more determined person who seeks education will no doubt desire to move onto DA if and when they can make decent bank through SB. He is also rightly pointing out that just because there are certain attributes associated with the way SB companies are marketing their products that people interpret as "dubious", does not mean that we should automatically look elsewhere. On the contrary, these "dubious" issues must be resolved in the pursuit of product excellence. Logically there are 2 possible directions, SB clean up their acts even more, or they remain on the "shady" side of the access to financial markets.
Pezza.
Dave is correct in saying most people who are SBing dont have the financial clout to go DA, however, the more determined person who seeks education will no doubt desire to move onto DA if and when they can make decent bank through SB. He is also rightly pointing out that just because there are certain attributes associated with the way SB companies are marketing their products that people interpret as "dubious", does not mean that we should automatically look elsewhere. On the contrary, these "dubious" issues must be resolved in the pursuit of product excellence. Logically there are 2 possible directions, SB clean up their acts even more, or they remain on the "shady" side of the access to financial markets.
Pezza.
Last edited:
May I ask for a little assistance please.
I presently trade stocks both inter and intra day with a direct access broker.
I have in mind trying CS for my EOD trades which will, typically, last from 3 - 15 days both long and short. My market is the S&P 500 component stocks.
My method involves identifying a 'limit' price for entry, a stop loss price in the event of an adverse move and 2 'profit' exit points where i take off half at each point.
Can anyone help with the calculation I must make to convert the various real market prices to CS prices? An example for Monday is a possible short trade in 'SVU'. My entry at real prices would be $33.12, my stop $33.47, my first profit target at $32.13 and my second at $31.05. What would the CS equivalent prices be?
Hope this is not gobbledygook.
LII
I presently trade stocks both inter and intra day with a direct access broker.
I have in mind trying CS for my EOD trades which will, typically, last from 3 - 15 days both long and short. My market is the S&P 500 component stocks.
My method involves identifying a 'limit' price for entry, a stop loss price in the event of an adverse move and 2 'profit' exit points where i take off half at each point.
Can anyone help with the calculation I must make to convert the various real market prices to CS prices? An example for Monday is a possible short trade in 'SVU'. My entry at real prices would be $33.12, my stop $33.47, my first profit target at $32.13 and my second at $31.05. What would the CS equivalent prices be?
Hope this is not gobbledygook.
LII
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
It is gobbledygook in the way that you express it, but I think I can penetrate the fog to understand what you mean. Perhaps you ought to statistically compare a "differential" between CS prices and direct access prices. You may or may not discover a coefficient between the two, sufficiently flexible to be of value in assessing an equivalent. Does this help ?
the blades
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,336
- Likes
- 275
LevII said:
Hello LevII,
I don't have a calculator at hand so I'll use some some simpler numbers.
You take the price and add on CS's commission of 0.3% for FTSE100 stock, 0.5% for FTSE250. Then you apply interest. So if the expiry date of the contract you are looking at is 6 months away, you'd apply half the annual interest rate that CS charge, currently 4.75%.
So for eg - the stock is FTSE100 and the market price is 100 - 101, the expiry of the contract is 6 months away.
The SB mid price would be 100.5 * 102.375 (the interest for 6 months). The spread would then be +/-(0.15%)SB commission +/-(0.5)market spread.
I think I've made that look more complicated than it is, but hopefully that helps a bit.
Kind regards,
UTB
DaveJB
A good post, and no I do not see your stance as being argumentative. That is the way these threads should benefit one another through sensible discussion. I accept you want an answer to the questions you ask and in Capitalspreads we are lucky to have Simon who is prepared to answer and has done so many times so you should get a response in due course.
In the case of CS until Simon responds we will not know as you highlight if it is all part of spreadbetting or something that can be put right.
I support your comments concerning SB as being a vehicle to begin, to learn the market if at the same time you are placing deals through the signals you get from the true market as there is a slight difference in some of the spreadbetting instruments. My comments were directed at those that complain endlessly about the performance of the spreadbetting services and yet if they research matters they soon find that in some cases trading through spreadbetting is different. I have only used spreadbetting for instruments that had what I considered a narrow spread. That meant for me many that I might otherwise consider were IMHO just not viable but would be in the real market.
That did not make me turn away from spreadbetting. Far from it, I adapted what I do to suit what I have come to learn of how some spreadbetting companies operate in certain situations or conditions. I chose the instrument I would trade based on the knowledge I had developed from spreadbetting so that I knew it could be accommodated. I would say to anyone who is currently using spreadbetting that if what they are doing works then I see no reason for them to move over to direct access unless,
1) they wish to dramatically increase the stake size and still obtain a good fill
2) there method is not working affectively as a result of less favourable prices or other administrative issues concerning order execution stops etc..
I will give you an example when I first considered trading indicies I looked at the moves created on the Dow and thought it would be nice to benefit from some of those price moves. It meant trying to find time to trade after work. But when I started the first hurdle was to contend with a 8 point spread. I got myself some cheap real time charts to support the real time prices of the company. I would then sit and wait for an appropriate signal from the real market. The spreadbetting company price would follow suit keeping around 3 or 4 points away from the real price. Then the move would develop pace. I would find myself in profit of about 7 points and then without warning the price of the spreadbetter would jump back yet the real market was still rising or falling. Then if the trend continued the spreadbetting price would start to move down in tandem. What had happened was that in this case the spreadbetting company for whatever reason had established a wider position from the real market. I don't know if they positioned the price in this way because they thought it would turn and were wrong. Personally what I experienced for the short period I dabbled with the Dow through spreadbetting was the feeling that to benefit from a trending move you needed to let the same price ground be covered twice with the spreadbetting company because it would happen frequently. Whatever the reason the outcome was always the same, the spreadbetting price would move further away from the real price while maintaining like for like moves save for the momentary jump to create the width. As the pace developed so the spread would widen starting at 3 or 4 moving to 7, 10 , 13 and on one ocassion 20 points adrift. The price would then close in again once the trend either slowed or stopped. It maybe that this was a peculariity of the particular spreadbetting company I was using but it made me see that I was trading something that was different to the real market. The obvious downside was that you would get less of the price move in your profit should the real price turn at a period when the spread was still wide or you could lose from what would have been a winning deal but as a result of the widening of the position the price never moved further on to accommodate the wider position and by the time the width had reduced you were in losing ground.
On other instruments I have attempted to trade in higher amounts but well within normal market size only to experience delays in the order sometimes as much as 1 minute to be given the choice of accepting a new quote 2 - 4 points away from what I requested. Trade at an amount that obviously suits the company and you have no problems and your fill is a s quick as direct access. These are but just 2 issues.
You learn through experience what you can and cannot do with spreadbetting and the boundaries are formed. I think that is what I was trying to get across in my last post and not that everyone has to move over to conventional trading.
I wish you well in your endeavour.
A good post, and no I do not see your stance as being argumentative. That is the way these threads should benefit one another through sensible discussion. I accept you want an answer to the questions you ask and in Capitalspreads we are lucky to have Simon who is prepared to answer and has done so many times so you should get a response in due course.
In the case of CS until Simon responds we will not know as you highlight if it is all part of spreadbetting or something that can be put right.
I support your comments concerning SB as being a vehicle to begin, to learn the market if at the same time you are placing deals through the signals you get from the true market as there is a slight difference in some of the spreadbetting instruments. My comments were directed at those that complain endlessly about the performance of the spreadbetting services and yet if they research matters they soon find that in some cases trading through spreadbetting is different. I have only used spreadbetting for instruments that had what I considered a narrow spread. That meant for me many that I might otherwise consider were IMHO just not viable but would be in the real market.
That did not make me turn away from spreadbetting. Far from it, I adapted what I do to suit what I have come to learn of how some spreadbetting companies operate in certain situations or conditions. I chose the instrument I would trade based on the knowledge I had developed from spreadbetting so that I knew it could be accommodated. I would say to anyone who is currently using spreadbetting that if what they are doing works then I see no reason for them to move over to direct access unless,
1) they wish to dramatically increase the stake size and still obtain a good fill
2) there method is not working affectively as a result of less favourable prices or other administrative issues concerning order execution stops etc..
I will give you an example when I first considered trading indicies I looked at the moves created on the Dow and thought it would be nice to benefit from some of those price moves. It meant trying to find time to trade after work. But when I started the first hurdle was to contend with a 8 point spread. I got myself some cheap real time charts to support the real time prices of the company. I would then sit and wait for an appropriate signal from the real market. The spreadbetting company price would follow suit keeping around 3 or 4 points away from the real price. Then the move would develop pace. I would find myself in profit of about 7 points and then without warning the price of the spreadbetter would jump back yet the real market was still rising or falling. Then if the trend continued the spreadbetting price would start to move down in tandem. What had happened was that in this case the spreadbetting company for whatever reason had established a wider position from the real market. I don't know if they positioned the price in this way because they thought it would turn and were wrong. Personally what I experienced for the short period I dabbled with the Dow through spreadbetting was the feeling that to benefit from a trending move you needed to let the same price ground be covered twice with the spreadbetting company because it would happen frequently. Whatever the reason the outcome was always the same, the spreadbetting price would move further away from the real price while maintaining like for like moves save for the momentary jump to create the width. As the pace developed so the spread would widen starting at 3 or 4 moving to 7, 10 , 13 and on one ocassion 20 points adrift. The price would then close in again once the trend either slowed or stopped. It maybe that this was a peculariity of the particular spreadbetting company I was using but it made me see that I was trading something that was different to the real market. The obvious downside was that you would get less of the price move in your profit should the real price turn at a period when the spread was still wide or you could lose from what would have been a winning deal but as a result of the widening of the position the price never moved further on to accommodate the wider position and by the time the width had reduced you were in losing ground.
On other instruments I have attempted to trade in higher amounts but well within normal market size only to experience delays in the order sometimes as much as 1 minute to be given the choice of accepting a new quote 2 - 4 points away from what I requested. Trade at an amount that obviously suits the company and you have no problems and your fill is a s quick as direct access. These are but just 2 issues.
You learn through experience what you can and cannot do with spreadbetting and the boundaries are formed. I think that is what I was trying to get across in my last post and not that everyone has to move over to conventional trading.
I wish you well in your endeavour.
Socrates
Your speech/engine is purring again, sadly missed
Level 2
To add to Blades in simplified terms why not ring up Capitalspreads when you see a level you have established in your method prior to 9pm and request a quote of the relevant instrument. If you intend to hold for 3 - 15 days you need to decide if you want to take the position with the rolling cash and get a better spread and get paid a small amount of interest for a sell or pay interest on a long. Alternatively pay the wider spread normally a few points and take a deal with the quarter instrument.
I am sure that Capitalspreads staff will be more than happy to give you the quotes you need and if considering a position for several days then the quotes will be as good as real time. One thing that I can say about Capitalspreads is that the customer service is the best I have ever experienced both using brokers, direct access and alternative spreadbetting companies. They are also fair.
Your speech/engine is purring again, sadly missed
Level 2
To add to Blades in simplified terms why not ring up Capitalspreads when you see a level you have established in your method prior to 9pm and request a quote of the relevant instrument. If you intend to hold for 3 - 15 days you need to decide if you want to take the position with the rolling cash and get a better spread and get paid a small amount of interest for a sell or pay interest on a long. Alternatively pay the wider spread normally a few points and take a deal with the quarter instrument.
I am sure that Capitalspreads staff will be more than happy to give you the quotes you need and if considering a position for several days then the quotes will be as good as real time. One thing that I can say about Capitalspreads is that the customer service is the best I have ever experienced both using brokers, direct access and alternative spreadbetting companies. They are also fair.
Perrington
Active member
- Messages
- 145
- Likes
- 0
Good afternoon all
kevin546,
Iam feeling rather tightfisted, so only a hapennys worth out of me today
Iam not trying to be argumentative neither, people having differing perspectives with regards to all aspects of life, and that includes spreadbetting, if someone has a differing viewpoint then this can be positive towards the overall discussion as we hammer out solutions and new ideas. I for one dont argue, I discuss, thats my style. You may have been around long enough to have seen a marked improvement regarding the services that current SB firms are offering, I respect that experience. However, If an aspect of a service can be improved upon further more, then I think its the most appropriate policy that the individuals related to whatever subject or topic it is they are participating in, share their viewpoints in the pursuit of developing a closer relationship with whomever they are dealing with.
Ive noted that a few of the members had observed spread bias, so therefore thought the timing was appropriate to enter the discussion. I feel that people are quite rightly entitled to ask questions regarding this issue, as it is certainly quite an interesting area of debate. As this thread if directly related to CS and not spreadbetting in general, I therefore feel it is also appropriate to comment on specifics relating to CS and not SB in general. CS could host their own forum for this type of interaction, however they choose not to, far be it for me to speculate as to what the motivation for this reason is. In general a few people have brought up the issue of bias and slow spot updates, and this is a truthful and fair reflection of the service CS provide, if CS dont like people commenting on these issues, then essentially they dont like their own service that they provide, and Iam sure they are quite capable of answering those issues for themselves. Simon may well return to this forum and clear up any "confusion" that may or may not exist for the forseable future, and that in my opinion is what this discussion is all about. Anyone reading the thread can therefore make a balanced decision based on the response, and this is what attracted me to CS in the first place, as I feel most of the questions are dealt with, and an informed response is provided. On a personal note, as well as the two issues in general regarding bias and slow updates, I would like realtime charting and a downloadable interface, so I popped the questions. We now know that realtime charting is highly unlikely for the medium to longer term future, so this is one area that has been cleared up. Lets hope we can clear up more areas as time passes by.
In my experience, ive found a few other SB firms, have more central spreads and update faster, If CS can provide this in tandem with the competitive base spreads they quote, then I feel CS could then be considered as THE leading SB firm, but without the two in tandem, people will continue to discuss the issues. I have no doubt Simon will return and provide that positive response.
kevin546,
Iam feeling rather tightfisted, so only a hapennys worth out of me today
Iam not trying to be argumentative neither, people having differing perspectives with regards to all aspects of life, and that includes spreadbetting, if someone has a differing viewpoint then this can be positive towards the overall discussion as we hammer out solutions and new ideas. I for one dont argue, I discuss, thats my style. You may have been around long enough to have seen a marked improvement regarding the services that current SB firms are offering, I respect that experience. However, If an aspect of a service can be improved upon further more, then I think its the most appropriate policy that the individuals related to whatever subject or topic it is they are participating in, share their viewpoints in the pursuit of developing a closer relationship with whomever they are dealing with.
Ive noted that a few of the members had observed spread bias, so therefore thought the timing was appropriate to enter the discussion. I feel that people are quite rightly entitled to ask questions regarding this issue, as it is certainly quite an interesting area of debate. As this thread if directly related to CS and not spreadbetting in general, I therefore feel it is also appropriate to comment on specifics relating to CS and not SB in general. CS could host their own forum for this type of interaction, however they choose not to, far be it for me to speculate as to what the motivation for this reason is. In general a few people have brought up the issue of bias and slow spot updates, and this is a truthful and fair reflection of the service CS provide, if CS dont like people commenting on these issues, then essentially they dont like their own service that they provide, and Iam sure they are quite capable of answering those issues for themselves. Simon may well return to this forum and clear up any "confusion" that may or may not exist for the forseable future, and that in my opinion is what this discussion is all about. Anyone reading the thread can therefore make a balanced decision based on the response, and this is what attracted me to CS in the first place, as I feel most of the questions are dealt with, and an informed response is provided. On a personal note, as well as the two issues in general regarding bias and slow updates, I would like realtime charting and a downloadable interface, so I popped the questions. We now know that realtime charting is highly unlikely for the medium to longer term future, so this is one area that has been cleared up. Lets hope we can clear up more areas as time passes by.
In my experience, ive found a few other SB firms, have more central spreads and update faster, If CS can provide this in tandem with the competitive base spreads they quote, then I feel CS could then be considered as THE leading SB firm, but without the two in tandem, people will continue to discuss the issues. I have no doubt Simon will return and provide that positive response.
Perrington
I quite see where you are coming from and would support the issue of trying to establish SB improvements. Personally for me I feel smaller spreads on the more volatile instruments fair pricing with order execution reliability together with charts are top of the list, but then that is me.
I wish you well I would only say that of the improvements I have seen most have come in the past 3 years which maybe attributed to increased SB competition and the market suffering lower activity. Therefore and I hope I am wrong but suspect there will now be a cooling period before we see more developments unless further competition is realised.
I for one would welcome SB in general which obviously includes CS moving closer to like for like trading with the real market. I feel there is sufficient room for SB to narrow the gap in terms of the actual trading. There should not be problems normal market share deals, spreads on some instruments are still to wide IMHO. I personally do not see why something that has a real spread of less than 1 can have SB spread of more than 3 but SB's will argue against this. I agree that once the SB has placed the instruments price a given width from the true instrument then although producing different prices the moves should be like for like with no irregularities. Dealing size and order execution should be the same as in the real market but I understand why SB would like to place there own boundaries. Until SB's move closer to the real thing and narrow the gap then they will always be seen as the lesser alternative because of the boundaries they set. Maybe if they published exactly what they will do for you and how trading would be different with them compared to conventional trading might make it easier for everyone concerned as to what service they could come to expect.
For what it is worth I feel CS offer good value within the SB fraternity although I do not trade any of the more volatile instruments for the reasons I have already outlined. I would only be willing to trade such instruments on a strong positional method and would prefer to see much more reliability in the order execution of fast moving markets.
I quite see where you are coming from and would support the issue of trying to establish SB improvements. Personally for me I feel smaller spreads on the more volatile instruments fair pricing with order execution reliability together with charts are top of the list, but then that is me.
I wish you well I would only say that of the improvements I have seen most have come in the past 3 years which maybe attributed to increased SB competition and the market suffering lower activity. Therefore and I hope I am wrong but suspect there will now be a cooling period before we see more developments unless further competition is realised.
I for one would welcome SB in general which obviously includes CS moving closer to like for like trading with the real market. I feel there is sufficient room for SB to narrow the gap in terms of the actual trading. There should not be problems normal market share deals, spreads on some instruments are still to wide IMHO. I personally do not see why something that has a real spread of less than 1 can have SB spread of more than 3 but SB's will argue against this. I agree that once the SB has placed the instruments price a given width from the true instrument then although producing different prices the moves should be like for like with no irregularities. Dealing size and order execution should be the same as in the real market but I understand why SB would like to place there own boundaries. Until SB's move closer to the real thing and narrow the gap then they will always be seen as the lesser alternative because of the boundaries they set. Maybe if they published exactly what they will do for you and how trading would be different with them compared to conventional trading might make it easier for everyone concerned as to what service they could come to expect.
For what it is worth I feel CS offer good value within the SB fraternity although I do not trade any of the more volatile instruments for the reasons I have already outlined. I would only be willing to trade such instruments on a strong positional method and would prefer to see much more reliability in the order execution of fast moving markets.
Perrington
Active member
- Messages
- 145
- Likes
- 0
I completely agree, ofcourse the bias is probably an aspect of SB that is here to stay... I wrongly assumed that SB made enough money out of losers and spreads as it is.
Oh good, we're reaching a consensus <g> I'm pretty well nodding in agreement with each post... first off it may be that Simon's busy, I think it's only fair to accept that he might have other things to deal with and will get around to this in time... so I'm not reading anything into his absence so far.
Like Perrington I (sort of) thought the increased spread was the source of SB company income, although I know 'bias' has been an issue for years - the SB company dragging their feet when a trend develops, but responding faster when the trend appears to be finished. It's fairly obvious that there is money to be gained from being slow enough to lop off the tops and bottoms of swings that retrace a little. I don't disagree with the idea of smaller spreads (who would?) but I'd rather have a larger spread and a reliable correlation with the actual market price, it's much easier then to decide if the move you are planning to trade is worthwhile... you know what the cost of the trade is going to be... much harder to cost that all up if the price may or may not fail to move in line with the market, by an arbitrary amount.
SB provides the small investor with a way to trade and sharpen skills - it can be low cost, but I don't doubt a good few are wiped out daily when they discover leverage is a two sided weapon.... you can pull on either end of a lever.
(Ed for spelnig)
Like Perrington I (sort of) thought the increased spread was the source of SB company income, although I know 'bias' has been an issue for years - the SB company dragging their feet when a trend develops, but responding faster when the trend appears to be finished. It's fairly obvious that there is money to be gained from being slow enough to lop off the tops and bottoms of swings that retrace a little. I don't disagree with the idea of smaller spreads (who would?) but I'd rather have a larger spread and a reliable correlation with the actual market price, it's much easier then to decide if the move you are planning to trade is worthwhile... you know what the cost of the trade is going to be... much harder to cost that all up if the price may or may not fail to move in line with the market, by an arbitrary amount.
SB provides the small investor with a way to trade and sharpen skills - it can be low cost, but I don't doubt a good few are wiped out daily when they discover leverage is a two sided weapon.... you can pull on either end of a lever.
(Ed for spelnig)
I will add as you touched on the issue. In trading you need a complete plan and I would be the first to say that when I started having spent the best part of 18 months preparing for my venture into what for the uninitiated can be a very large black hole I was ill prepared and arrogant to think I was anywhere near ready. You need a plan that incorporates all that you will encounter before entering, while in and on getting out, you need to know the the answers the market will throw at you before they are asked. A complete plan is not just about a trading entry method it must encompass risk, capital, profit expectation and most important YOU. If you cannot see your plan through to the end without the required discipline then it is not quite right for you. The best method is the one that works for you and not the best trading plan IMHO. Add to all of this that you now have to include all issues that the SB firms bring to change the game a little bit more and you find that your plan must account for this if you wish to trade by this medium.
Slightly off topic but I feel relevant.
As to Simon I think he only posts Mon - Fri when he has some free time to look in. As you say he may have been busy towards the end of the week. There is also a lot of catching up to do so I would suggest if he does not reply directly and enters and responds to a more recent post then it might be beneficial to re-post or send him a pm.
Socrates
Very best wishes
Slightly off topic but I feel relevant.
As to Simon I think he only posts Mon - Fri when he has some free time to look in. As you say he may have been busy towards the end of the week. There is also a lot of catching up to do so I would suggest if he does not reply directly and enters and responds to a more recent post then it might be beneficial to re-post or send him a pm.
Socrates
Very best wishes
Agreed,
and it is because of this that I've posted on the topic - once the rules and various percentages are known they can be factored in... I would prefer a larger spread with all factors quantified to a smaller spread but a meandering price. I can plan for the former, but only estimate for the latter. Even in the latter case I can ensure my estimates cover likely outcomes if I need to, but I would prefer to know what to factor in.
I'm sure Simon has plenty to deal with, presence here will be a bit of PR... I doubt it was ever intended that he should devote 18 hrs a day to it. (In fact I'd guess it has turned out rather more demanding than the poor chap expected it would <g>) Rest assured I'll happily PM if I think the wait is dragging too much.
and it is because of this that I've posted on the topic - once the rules and various percentages are known they can be factored in... I would prefer a larger spread with all factors quantified to a smaller spread but a meandering price. I can plan for the former, but only estimate for the latter. Even in the latter case I can ensure my estimates cover likely outcomes if I need to, but I would prefer to know what to factor in.
I'm sure Simon has plenty to deal with, presence here will be a bit of PR... I doubt it was ever intended that he should devote 18 hrs a day to it. (In fact I'd guess it has turned out rather more demanding than the poor chap expected it would <g>) Rest assured I'll happily PM if I think the wait is dragging too much.
DaveJB
In respect of the issues you raise regarding CS price movement, which appears to affect fast moving instruments as I cannot say I have noticed it with the slower FTSE is to obtain real time charts of the SB firm. As we are aware CS do not currently provide these although there is some suggestion they are trying to which is another question that awaits update from Simon, but others do. It does not deal with all aspects of SB but it helps because if you chart the SB price then it follows you trade according to that price movement and not the expected market movement. I know that CMC offer charts and I am not sure about Cityindex but I think IGIndex do also but the last 2 also offer very wide spreads.
In respect of the issues you raise regarding CS price movement, which appears to affect fast moving instruments as I cannot say I have noticed it with the slower FTSE is to obtain real time charts of the SB firm. As we are aware CS do not currently provide these although there is some suggestion they are trying to which is another question that awaits update from Simon, but others do. It does not deal with all aspects of SB but it helps because if you chart the SB price then it follows you trade according to that price movement and not the expected market movement. I know that CMC offer charts and I am not sure about Cityindex but I think IGIndex do also but the last 2 also offer very wide spreads.
The debate around pricing is interesting.
Attached are screenshots taken from TC2005 and D4F (rolling cash) of Air Products at the close on Friday.
The arrowed bar is one reason I find D4F unusable, as are a number of other wholly unrepresentative prices.
Can we be assured this does not happen with CS or is what Dave is reporting simply the CS variant on D4F?
LII
Attached are screenshots taken from TC2005 and D4F (rolling cash) of Air Products at the close on Friday.
The arrowed bar is one reason I find D4F unusable, as are a number of other wholly unrepresentative prices.
Can we be assured this does not happen with CS or is what Dave is reporting simply the CS variant on D4F?
LII
Attachments
Last edited:
I won't post it,
but esignal's daily chart agrees with TC2000's, that's a Doji on esignal also. On CS it's a very small difference, and it's seen as a sluggishness to respond to actual price moves - I've never seen anything as bad as the APD above, thank goodness... on 10 minute charts you do see unrealistic prices on esignal as odd trades go through way off the actual bid:ask, which you need to be aware of. (Very hard to rely on analysis of tops and bottoms if they're largely caused by a good ol' boy typing with his feet).
Kevin - yes, but then that locks you to the charting package offered by CS, I would prefer to continue to use esignal, not least because it is reporting the actual market price. I see no advantage in changing to a CS RT chart, my esignal desktop is set how I want it with what I want showing on each chart and table. Whilst I'm more than happy for you to get your RT charts from CS I see no reason why I should have to use it to chart the market if I don't want to. I should be able to use my existing charting package which is reporting the prices accurately.
but esignal's daily chart agrees with TC2000's, that's a Doji on esignal also. On CS it's a very small difference, and it's seen as a sluggishness to respond to actual price moves - I've never seen anything as bad as the APD above, thank goodness... on 10 minute charts you do see unrealistic prices on esignal as odd trades go through way off the actual bid:ask, which you need to be aware of. (Very hard to rely on analysis of tops and bottoms if they're largely caused by a good ol' boy typing with his feet).
Kevin - yes, but then that locks you to the charting package offered by CS, I would prefer to continue to use esignal, not least because it is reporting the actual market price. I see no advantage in changing to a CS RT chart, my esignal desktop is set how I want it with what I want showing on each chart and table. Whilst I'm more than happy for you to get your RT charts from CS I see no reason why I should have to use it to chart the market if I don't want to. I should be able to use my existing charting package which is reporting the prices accurately.
