So... it turns out that Market Maker models arent that bad - Page 2
Page 2 of 733 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 327

Thread: So... it turns out that Market Maker models arent that bad

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    The problem for the ECNs is the liquidity suppliers stopped quoting themmeaning they could not get their clients from their trade, meaning they had been trapped at a market not quoting. Since customers blew all of their account, and a great deal more besides, by the time the market had got to some sort of normality the ECNs brokers had a massive floating reduction on their books because they don't hedge. They needed to assume obligation to pay back. That is how it is understood by me.
    When the ECN liquidity suppliers stopped quoting them, the stoploss orders in place would not trigger also? Will the orders don't trigger in MM models also in the exact same situation?

  2. #12
    The MM version that is bucketshop is the very best for the MM not for your client.

    MM cancel trades internally and just go to LP if their internal offset overflows.

    In a situation like yesterdays, they are easily able to affirm margin calls WHERE THEY WIN!!

    While egorizing all (or many ) take profits as a NO FILL!!

    So where they win ( clients margin calls and prevent losses) and in which they lose ( take profits ) are treated differently to their own benefit.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote Exactly what do you believe at the MM model, the stops never got hit? Of course the stops got hit?
    The stops never got hit since there wasn't any to hit.

    The'broker' (since they are not really a broker but a dealer - however I digress...) never hedged your transaction on the interbank bank market in order that they never had some stops on the interbank market.

    So if a MM client (any I've read some terrible stories)'d 50K on your acct and ended up with -#250k then the MM will owe nothing to some liquidity counter celebrations (cos they never placed the trade) and you're going to owe them 250k... now they could preach the no zero policy stuff and you are now grateful for loosing only 50K as long as the overall numbers of winners on the day could be consumed by these wiped out accts not only does the MM live to see another day but they might have profited from the entire debacle...

    make sense?

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote ECN brokers don't take counterparty to your position, at least in theory, they should package your order jointly and move it through the interbank. The market manufacturer models do take and if their risk goes above a certain threshold level, make sure that on their publication, or any pair, then they must hedge in the interbank market. The problem for the ECNs is the liquidity providers stopped quoting themmeaning they couldn't get their clients from the trade, meaning they had been trapped within a market not quoting....
    Correct an ECN is not counterparty to your position (only they have to be as you don't have credit lines with the next tier down but ignore this ) they don't have you because of counterparty risk so when those accounts are negative they are forced to cover them to their liquidity providers (or be insolvent if they can not ) because folks are not topping up there accts like all good citizens should be doing in this situation:-|

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote correct that an ECN is not counterparty to your position (simply they need to be you don't have credit lines with the next tier down but ignore that) they do have you as a counterparty risk so when those accounts are negative they are forced to cover them to their liquidity suppliers (or become insolvent if they can not ) because people are not topping up accts like all decent citizens ought to do in this situation:-|
    So in essence those men who got reckless, and shorted the eurchf peg, and other crosses with high leverage, are liable for others potentially losing money? - I agree.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote When the ECN liquidity suppliers ceased quoting them, the stoploss orders in place would not activate also? Will the orders also not activate in MM models also in precisely the same situation?
    Type of. With the ECN brokers when you take a trade the brokers accept comission and move it on to the market, I am not entirely certain how they do this, but they don't act as counterparty. So as a broker they approach their liquidity supplier including all the orders on their books, for eurchf, that is 94% extended short = net eurchf that the broker is subjected to. Because any reduction is the clients this is fine, and the broker only collects the commission. However, if your brokers liquidity suppliers aren't quoting they don't have access to the interbank, and consequently, if their clients accounts losses exceed the maximum value of the account, the broker suddenly owes it's liquidity provider the gap.

    When an order arrives to a MM broker, they provide counterparty to the position, if you want to buy eurchf, they'll sell it to youpersonally, and hedge away excess risk. So with a MM, when 89 percent of clients are net long, the broker is 89% internet short and some of this will be hedge by placing shorts in the actual market. When the peg broke the MM brokers would have short positions equivalent in size to the net long of their clients, meaning that they don't have to fret about stops being struck.

    I am not 100% sure on all this, but this is my opinion on the circumstance.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    Does market manufacturer model pose huge disadvantage simply to short term trader, eg 1m/5m/15m timeframe, or it hurts long long term trader? (H1 or over )
    MMs are likely not the best option for scalers but that doesn't automatically mean that they are safe for swing long-tern traders either since they are taking the other side of the transaction, if a MM broker ends up with a lot of winning traders then they could still go bankrupt as the cash won from losing traders may not have the ability to pay the cash they'd owe to winning traders.

    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    No - So it goes like this... picture this senario... (did not happen BTW) BBCMicro believes SNB has his spine;--RRB- so buys 10 lots of EUR/CHF @1.2008 Now BBCMicros broker (Alpari in this case) believes... umm I've a responsibility - if BBC wins I loose (I have to pay BBC) and if he looses I win (BBCs acct dwindles) Alpari doesn't like this so they also buy 10 lots of EUR/CHF @1.2008 - now if BBC wins I win and I just pass my winnings directly to BBC and if BBC looses and I loose well we are still equal as BBCs acct and therefore what he could draw has just...
    Great excuse!

    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote The stops never got hit because there was not any to strike. The'broker' (because they are not really a broker but a trader - however I digress...) never hedged your transaction on the interbank bank market in order that they never had some quits on the interbank market. So if a MM customer (any I have read some terrible stories)'d 50K on your acct and ended up with -#250k then the MM will owe nothing to some liquidity counter celebrations (cos they never placed the transaction ) and you'll owe them #250k... they could preach the no zero coverage stuff and you are currently grateful...
    Yes, even a MM broker might wind up with a profit, considerable amount of it at that but if he had a lot winning traders then he might be running into losses too, so there is always that risk too. In summary, we are doomed

    EDIT: On second thoughts, might be the ideal model is a hybrid one where the broker trades contrary to the losing traders is smart enough to quickly comprehend hedge the transactions of successful traders, in which situation, even during a rare occasion like yesterday, he will have enough accumulated profit over the years (cash won from losing traders) which he will have the ability to pay the losses.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote EDIT: On second thoughts, might be the best model is a hybrid one where the broker trades contrary to the shedding traders is smart enough to immediately recognize hedge the trades of successful traders, in which case, even during a rare occasion like yesterday, he will have enough accumulated profit over the years (cash won from shedding traders) that he will be able to pay the losses.
    That is what the MM already do.

    They have two novels.

    One publication with all the shedding traders which they act as counterparty to, hedging only when maximum risk for that publication is breached.

    And yet another publication called marked risk including the winning traders which they hedge immediately, they only collect commission from these men since they're winners.

    In order to separate the customers, the winners in the winners, the brokers clearly closely monitor all of traders performance.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote That is exactly what the MM already do. They have two novels. One book with the traders that they act hedging only when risk for this book is broken. And yet another book called marked risk including the winning traders that they hedge immediately, they simply collect commission from these guys since they are winners. In order to separate the customers, the winners from the winners, the brokers closely monitor all traders performance.
    That's right. That's what smart ones do those would be the most suitable choice for the traders but not every MM is good at doing this well. And, is it really that simple for us to see the smart MMs? These days most brokers prefer to throw around words such as NDD ECN so it obscures things. The point being that because of what happened yesterday, traders should not blindly think that any MM is much better than an ECN as it feels like that's exactly what a fantastic number of recent articles on these forums have been insinuating.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote That Is right. That's what ones do those would be the best option for the traders but not every MM is great at doing this. And, is it really that simple for us to see the MMs? These days brokers prefer to throw around words like NDD, STP, ECN so it obscures items. The point being that because of what occurred yesterday, traders shouldn't blindly feel that any MM is far better than an ECN as it seems like that is exactly what a good number of recent posts on these forums have been insinuating....
    I believed that the ECNs where better also, shows what I know.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.