Technical analysis is sometimes studied as if it contains a grain of secret knowledge or portrays an intrinsic truth about currency movements. Often it is said that a specific chart formation will produce a specific price movement.
Technical analysis does nothing of the sort. A chart is a reflection of past prices, nothing more. In itself a graph cannot predict future price movements. A currency does not trade up of down because of a formation on a chart. It moves because market participants make basic assumptions about future price behavior based on the record of past price action. A charted history of price action is the cumulative story of thousands of trading decisions; it is a record of the past behavior of thousands of individual traders.
Price information is meaningful only because trader’s decisions give it predictive power. A simple proof of the limited forward intelligence of historical price action is the well attested notion that fundamental developments always trump technical analysis. If the Federal Reserve raises rates unexpectedly or the Chinese Government announces it will no longer buy US Treasuries there is no chart formation that has ever existed that will prevent the dollar from rocketing up in the first instance or plummeting in the second.
Technical analysis does not produce price movement. I state the obvious because in the endless attribution of trading cause and effect to ‘the market’ it is easy to lose sight of the actual composition of the market--thousands of individual decision makers. The translation mechanism for technical analysis runs from the information contained in a chart, through the assessment of that information by market participants to the trading behavior of those market participants.
Another way to approach this idea is to ask, just who is the ‘market’ and what is it trying to accomplish every day. It is likely that over 90% of the $3.2 trillion daily volume in the FX market is speculative. That means that everyone in the market from the hedge fund trader with $1 billion under management, to the euro trader on the Deutsche Bank interbank desk to the retail trader in her study, is trying to do exactly the same thing, take home daily trading profits.
Interestingly, the overall worldwide foreign exchange trading volume in 2007, the year of the last survey, increased almost 50% from the prior survey in 2004 of $1.9 trillion daily. The counterparty reporting segment to which retail foreign exchange belongs boosted its share of turnover to 40% from 33% according to Bank for International Settlements in Basel (BIS, 2007) which conducts the tri-annual survey.
To return to my previous point, if every market participant is attempting to do the same thing, namely wring trading profits from the day’s activities, how do they all go about it?
The first thing every trader does, in New York, Tokyo, London and in every land in between is to pull up charts and look for trading opportunities. Every trader looking for profit is judging the same charts. Everyone sees the same price history, and everyone identifies the same potentially profitable chart formations. And, in the absence of other factors, the majority of traders will come to the same trading conclusion based on the observed chart formations.
If euro has been in an up channel for two weeks and is approaching the bottom of the channel most traders looking for an opportunity in euro will bet on the continuance of the up trend and the maintenance of the channel. They will place buy orders just above the floor of the channel. And much of the time the charts will have been proven correct, the euro will indeed bounce from the floor of the channel. But it bounces not because, for instance, the ECB is expected to raise rates at some future date, but because of the fit between the goals, information and assumptions of the market’s traders.
Traders need profits, all charts contain the same information and all traders operate with similar assumptions about market behavior based on chart formations. If enough traders place their buy orders above the bottom of the channel it becomes likely that the euro will bounce off the floor of the channel and continue the upward channel formation, barring external events of course.
There is powerful self-fulfilling logic in technical analysis, it works, because everyone trading believes it will work and makes their trading decisions accordingly. For a retail trader this knowledge is the most accessible and effective trading strategy that exists.
Joseph Trevisani
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Dajjal Baby (Please be carefull)
Thanks to Mazaahir-ul-Uloom
I have received this email numerous times, many know this is NOT dajjal and its merely a poor baby born with medical condition and deformed developments.
Below is a more official answer to this
The ahadith relating to physical features and appearance of Dajjaal are quite clear. The baby shown on the email pictures cannot be Dajjaal because of the following reasons :
1. Dajjaal was present at least from the time of Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. A hadith exaplains the expererience of Tamim al-Daari Radhi Allahu Anhu where he saw Dajjaal chained on an island.
2. Dajjaal has been described in the ahadith as having two eyes. One of them will be blind and one will protrude like a grape.
3. The word “kaafir” will be seen on his forehead.
Medical doctors have further confirmed that the case of the baby, in question, with one eye is actually a physical deformity.
One should be particularly careful about circulating emails of this nature because they cause misconceptions and unnecessary confusion. As Muslims we believe completely in the words of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam regarding the emergence of Dajjaal. Our faith in this should not hinge upon images or chain emails.
We should further prepare ourselves from falling prey to the deception of Dajjaal, if we live to see him, by following the prescriptions mentioned in the Quran and ahadith.
And Allah knows best.
Courtesy of : Madrasah Mazaahir al-Uloom. For all Shariah related queries contact Mufti Muhammad Abubakr Minty at almazaahir@gmail.com
Monday, June 29, 2009
Market Direction
In the past three weeks there have been several indications that the Federal Reserve is reconsidering the extent and perhaps necessity of its extraordinary liquidity provisions to the Treasury market. How far have the chairman and governors pulled back from their quantitative easing policy?
On June 3rd Chairman Bernanke commented in Congressional testimony that Federal deficits cannot continue forever. In fact the deficits can continue, but the Fed’s $300 billion Treasury purchase plan will end unless additional funding is authorized by the Fed Governors. At this past week’s FOMC meeting the board specifically did not authorize further Treasury purchases. The Fed is also letting one of its emergency liquidity programs expire and curtailing two others. None of these developments is an overt change in policy, but they are reassurances that the chairman and the board view these liquidity measures as crisis expedients and not as permanent institutions of monetary and economic policy.
It is easy to forget that the Fed policy of direct support for credit markets was an emergency response to the crisis of confidence that overwhelmed the financial system last fall. Fed purchases of various securities supplied liquidity to non-functioning markets; they were not intended to be permanent. The Fed said as much at the time, though in the ensuing months market focus shifted from the programs themselves to the lack of a clear strategy for absorbing the excess money supply from the economy.
In March the market reaction to the financial crisis was at its peak. Treasury prices had been driven to historical highs by sustained panic buying of US Treasuries. Treasury interest rates and rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages were at record lows. But even though mortgages rates were extraordinarily low the Fed judged that the reeling economy could not tolerate the surge in interest rates that would occur if Treasury prices began to fall. The governors may have suspected that the Treasury market would begin to drive prices lower and rates higher on its own as conditions normalized
In that context the Fed announced its $300 billion Treasury purchase in the FOMC statement of March 18th. The governors may also have been worried about the impact of the Federal deficit on the bond market whose reaction was then an unknown quantity. But despite the Fed backstop the Treasury market fell relentlessly after March 18 with the 10-year rate rising more than 1.5%. More dangerously the dollar index fell 10% from March 18th to June 6th.
For the currency markets the Fed Treasury program has had one meaning, monetization of the Federal debt.
Judging by the subsequent rise in Treasury rates the Fed governors may have known that the $300 million committed would be insufficient to hold the line on Treasury rates. But that relatively minor amount had a deadly effect on the dollar. The merest suspicion that monetization of US debt was possible sent the dollar into a three month swoon. The inflation that would result from a rapidly falling dollar and the effect of a collapsing dollar on the Treasury market itself could undo much of the economic and rate stabilization that the Fed was striving to achieve.
The Fed concern about the Treasury market was for the economic effect of higher interest rates on the US economy, particularly on the housing market thought by many to be at the heart of the economic collapse. But higher Treasury yields and mortgage rates have not, at least so far, choked whatever positive change in the economy has occurred since March. 30-year fixed mortgages have gained more than a point but the housing market has stabilized; new home and existing home sales in May were both in the center of the range they have exhibited since January.
Personal Consumption Expenditures have revived a bit. They were flat in April and gained 0.3% in May, which was only the third positive month in the past eleven. Non Farm Payrolls were substantially improved in May at -345,000, with the three month moving average (-500,000) having gained almost 200,000 since March (-691,000). Consumer sentiment numbers have moved up steadily since the beginning of the quarter. The economic situation that prompted the Fed quantitative easing has returned to more normal territory.
The Treasury market has also stabilized in the past two weeks. After reaching 4.00% the yield on the 10-year note had declined to 3.54% on the Friday close. The government Treasury auctions, a record $104 billion in the past week alone, have been subscribed at higher rates than normal. The bond markets are not demanding substantially higher rates on American debt, despite the vast continuing supply of US issuance.
The key to the continuance of the Fed Treasury program is the attitude of the credit markets. It is relatively simple. If bond purchasers do not demand higher yields for US debt, then whatever the long term effect of the ballooning US debt and inflation the government will not be forced to pay higher rates. If Treasury prices are not falling the Fed will not have to support the market with further Treasury purchases and the currency markets will not be stampeded away from the dollar by monetization.
Foreign central banks have been unusually critical of the US government’s fiscal and debt policy. The Chinese were so again this week. But what matters are not the banker’s words or their musings about a world reserve currency. What matters is action. As long as the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and private investors continue to buy US Treasuries, the Fed will not have to choose between supporting the US economy and supporting the dollar.
It is a delicate balance but so far the Fed has, with the cooperation of the Treasury markets, kept the pointer right in the middle of the scale. The Fed has managed to mitigate the scare it threw into the currency markets in March with its recent statements and actions.
There are still a huge amount of Treasuries to be sold over the next three months and the economic situation is still dangerous. But the Fed view as reflected in the FOMC statement, no more quantitative easing and a slight though significant withdrawal from the credit markets may be the right and artful balance between keeping down US interest rates and avoiding a dollar panic in the currency markets.
Joseph Trevisani
On June 3rd Chairman Bernanke commented in Congressional testimony that Federal deficits cannot continue forever. In fact the deficits can continue, but the Fed’s $300 billion Treasury purchase plan will end unless additional funding is authorized by the Fed Governors. At this past week’s FOMC meeting the board specifically did not authorize further Treasury purchases. The Fed is also letting one of its emergency liquidity programs expire and curtailing two others. None of these developments is an overt change in policy, but they are reassurances that the chairman and the board view these liquidity measures as crisis expedients and not as permanent institutions of monetary and economic policy.
It is easy to forget that the Fed policy of direct support for credit markets was an emergency response to the crisis of confidence that overwhelmed the financial system last fall. Fed purchases of various securities supplied liquidity to non-functioning markets; they were not intended to be permanent. The Fed said as much at the time, though in the ensuing months market focus shifted from the programs themselves to the lack of a clear strategy for absorbing the excess money supply from the economy.
In March the market reaction to the financial crisis was at its peak. Treasury prices had been driven to historical highs by sustained panic buying of US Treasuries. Treasury interest rates and rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages were at record lows. But even though mortgages rates were extraordinarily low the Fed judged that the reeling economy could not tolerate the surge in interest rates that would occur if Treasury prices began to fall. The governors may have suspected that the Treasury market would begin to drive prices lower and rates higher on its own as conditions normalized
In that context the Fed announced its $300 billion Treasury purchase in the FOMC statement of March 18th. The governors may also have been worried about the impact of the Federal deficit on the bond market whose reaction was then an unknown quantity. But despite the Fed backstop the Treasury market fell relentlessly after March 18 with the 10-year rate rising more than 1.5%. More dangerously the dollar index fell 10% from March 18th to June 6th.
For the currency markets the Fed Treasury program has had one meaning, monetization of the Federal debt.
Judging by the subsequent rise in Treasury rates the Fed governors may have known that the $300 million committed would be insufficient to hold the line on Treasury rates. But that relatively minor amount had a deadly effect on the dollar. The merest suspicion that monetization of US debt was possible sent the dollar into a three month swoon. The inflation that would result from a rapidly falling dollar and the effect of a collapsing dollar on the Treasury market itself could undo much of the economic and rate stabilization that the Fed was striving to achieve.
The Fed concern about the Treasury market was for the economic effect of higher interest rates on the US economy, particularly on the housing market thought by many to be at the heart of the economic collapse. But higher Treasury yields and mortgage rates have not, at least so far, choked whatever positive change in the economy has occurred since March. 30-year fixed mortgages have gained more than a point but the housing market has stabilized; new home and existing home sales in May were both in the center of the range they have exhibited since January.
Personal Consumption Expenditures have revived a bit. They were flat in April and gained 0.3% in May, which was only the third positive month in the past eleven. Non Farm Payrolls were substantially improved in May at -345,000, with the three month moving average (-500,000) having gained almost 200,000 since March (-691,000). Consumer sentiment numbers have moved up steadily since the beginning of the quarter. The economic situation that prompted the Fed quantitative easing has returned to more normal territory.
The Treasury market has also stabilized in the past two weeks. After reaching 4.00% the yield on the 10-year note had declined to 3.54% on the Friday close. The government Treasury auctions, a record $104 billion in the past week alone, have been subscribed at higher rates than normal. The bond markets are not demanding substantially higher rates on American debt, despite the vast continuing supply of US issuance.
The key to the continuance of the Fed Treasury program is the attitude of the credit markets. It is relatively simple. If bond purchasers do not demand higher yields for US debt, then whatever the long term effect of the ballooning US debt and inflation the government will not be forced to pay higher rates. If Treasury prices are not falling the Fed will not have to support the market with further Treasury purchases and the currency markets will not be stampeded away from the dollar by monetization.
Foreign central banks have been unusually critical of the US government’s fiscal and debt policy. The Chinese were so again this week. But what matters are not the banker’s words or their musings about a world reserve currency. What matters is action. As long as the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and private investors continue to buy US Treasuries, the Fed will not have to choose between supporting the US economy and supporting the dollar.
It is a delicate balance but so far the Fed has, with the cooperation of the Treasury markets, kept the pointer right in the middle of the scale. The Fed has managed to mitigate the scare it threw into the currency markets in March with its recent statements and actions.
There are still a huge amount of Treasuries to be sold over the next three months and the economic situation is still dangerous. But the Fed view as reflected in the FOMC statement, no more quantitative easing and a slight though significant withdrawal from the credit markets may be the right and artful balance between keeping down US interest rates and avoiding a dollar panic in the currency markets.
Joseph Trevisani
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)