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.

BlueHorseshoe

Compounding Long-Only

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I've just begun trading a second account today (18 months in the planning and research), with rather different and more conservative goals to what I've done elsewhere, and I wanted to share some thoughts . . . Here's some basic info:

 

  • The strategy is long-only a portfolio of 12 ETFs
  • Positions are rebalanced monthly
  • Allocations are the result of a rule-based adaptive algorithm
  • Leverage is configured at 0.96
  • A position is held in all 12 markets at all times

 

So here's the conundrum . . .

 

The strategy shows a greater edge, when the simplest of money management approaches (reinvestment of return, reinvestment of dividends) is applied, than when position sizing is based on a static account size.

 

How can this be?

 

Imagine investing in 4 shares of single stock. After a strong month, during which the stock rallied 100%, you liquidate your position. Your equity has doubled. Does this mean that you now go and buy 8 shares of this stock? Of course not: the stock now costs twice as much. You can only buy 4 shares.

 

Now imagine you split your equity evenly between purchases of shares of two equally priced stocks, with 2 shares in each. The first doubles in value; the second exhibits no change whatsoever. Your account has increased in size by 50%, and so some of this increase in available equity is passed on to your new position size in the second stock (the one whose value remained static).

 

You can only buy 2 shares of the first stock, but you can buy 3 shares of the second. The second is the "weaker" stock - the one that has demonstrated the least return for a long-only trader.

 

Now consider my long-only strategy, which is designed to benefit only from price increases. When returns are compounded evenly in allocation to all components of the portfolio, and the strategy becomes more profitable with this type of compounding, then the increase in alpha MUST COME FROM THE WEAKER PERFORMING COMPONENTS.

 

That's right: the strategy has been designed to benefit when price goes up, but the money management element will increase returns purely by increasing allocation to those markets that have gone up the least (or even fallen).

 

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

Kind Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

I think if there were a name that you could put to such a strategy it would be "trading the cycle" or possibly "value investing". If you watch a basket of individual stocks day-to-day it's fairly easy to spot the cycle in a market that is trending. This becomes more evident if the basket ranges across all sectors.

 

Reversion to the mean is a statistical fact of life as we know it, but playing that game can be frustrating. That's why I became a day trader... my account was always "reverting to the mean".

 

Edit: I'd like to think that I would be better at it now than I was then... not so sure though.

Edited by jpennybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can this be?

 

 

Are the etfs equities markets biased?

 

Equities have done phenomenally well over the last 5 1/4 years. It was hard to lose money, long term, with anything that is a component of the s&p 500, or other related corporate index.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the etfs equities markets biased?

 

Equities have done phenomenally well over the last 5 1/4 years. It was hard to lose money, long term, with anything that is a component of the s&p 500, or other related corporate index.

 

Hi MM,

 

A few are equity indices, but it's pretty well diversified with things like metals, energies, interest rates, and timber woodland in there as well. The weighting of each component in the portfolio is a dynamic feature, so the allocation to equities may be minimal (as it was in 2008 for example).

 

The strategy has underperformed the S&P500 throughout the past few years.

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Edited by BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

 

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

Kind Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

You have simply modified the portfolio strategy.....

if you rebalance every month you are making quantity to buy decisions based not on mean reversion, breakouts or any such changes in prices. You are making it based on your rule for rebalancing. There are many ways to do this, no rebalancing, rebalancing monthly, quarterly, at some change in % or absolute equity.....etc;etc.

 

Imagine it this way - you are a fund manager and you have to deal with subscriptions and redemptions each month.

You have to have a rule that either simply increases/decreases each quantity each month, OR you will have a change in each individual position proportionally - ie; investors either are diluted or get increased concentration to different positions for their returns going forward if you treat all investors the same with the same NAV calculation.

(One of the great reasons why similar styled funds have different returns even if they have similar entry exit triggers and many of them say its all in the money mgmt)

 

So in a nutshell its just another component to consider as part of an over all strategy for the portfolio simply as you have added the extra rule of rebalancing - (and why when many backtesting systems say they are able to test for a portfolio is BS, as it can get more complicated than they allow for)

 

......I also think that you are miss using the common usage of alpha. Your may or may not get extra alpha out of your strategy, depending on what the benchmark for your alpha measurement does. Hence while it might underperform the SP recently, it might be great over 10-15-20 years.

 

Your point might be better described as - if I apply this money mgt rule to a breakout type entry strategy does it massively change the returns over the long run, and deviate from the strategy I am implementing, or does it provide a better risk return profile--- at a complete guess it might smooth the returns and lower them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have simply modified the portfolio strategy.....

if you rebalance every month you are making quantity to buy decisions based not on mean reversion, breakouts or any such changes in prices. You are making it based on your rule for rebalancing. There are many ways to do this, no rebalancing, rebalancing monthly, quarterly, at some change in % or absolute equity.....etc;etc.

 

Imagine it this way - you are a fund manager and you have to deal with subscriptions and redemptions each month.

You have to have a rule that either simply increases/decreases each quantity each month, OR you will have a change in each individual position proportionally - ie; investors either are diluted or get increased concentration to different positions for their returns going forward if you treat all investors the same with the same NAV calculation.

(One of the great reasons why similar styled funds have different returns even if they have similar entry exit triggers and many of them say its all in the money mgmt)

 

So in a nutshell its just another component to consider as part of an over all strategy for the portfolio simply as you have added the extra rule of rebalancing - (and why when many backtesting systems say they are able to test for a portfolio is BS, as it can get more complicated than they allow for)

 

......I also think that you are miss using the common usage of alpha. Your may or may not get extra alpha out of your strategy, depending on what the benchmark for your alpha measurement does. Hence while it might underperform the SP recently, it might be great over 10-15-20 years.

 

Your point might be better described as - if I apply this money mgt rule to a breakout type entry strategy does it massively change the returns over the long run, and deviate from the strategy I am implementing, or does it provide a better risk return profile--- at a complete guess it might smooth the returns and lower them.

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

The strategy is best termed 'relative strength' rather than 'breakout' - I just tend to lump anything that is directional and not mean reversion together as 'go with' - trend following included.

 

I may be misusing the term alpha . . . I was considering an equal-weighted portfolio of the components (ie a 'passive' investment in the portfolio) as the benchmark. The portfolio as I have implemented it, with variable weights, shows (historically) a greater return than this benchmark - is this not usually termed alpha?

 

The key question I'm asking though is this: when profits can be traced to a particular portfolio component, should the "benefit" of increased position sizing be passed to just this one component, or to the portfolio as a whole?

 

What I have found in this instance is that performance is improved when the benefit is passed equally to every component in the portfolio. This must mean that the improvement in performance is the result of increasing position size for poorer performing components, surely?

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

re alpha yes - I thoughts you were simply talking about alpha 'generally' and not in direct ref to an equally weighted benchmark, and even then the benchmark needs to be standardised...but my confusion. (too much beer on the weekend in Prague) The way you are referencing it is good.

I think this is also one of the issues when people pigeon hole a strategy type as men reversion, breakout, trend etc; as it needs to be compared to a standard otherwise it is hard to compare apples and oranges.

''''''''''''''

"The key question I'm asking though is this: when profits can be traced to a particular portfolio component, should the "benefit" of increased position sizing be passed to just this one component, or to the portfolio as a whole?

 

What I have found in this instance is that performance is improved when the benefit is passed equally to every component in the portfolio. This must mean that the improvement in performance is the result of increasing position size for poorer performing components, surely?""

 

If you are rebalancing your whole porftolio, then you must be doing it taking into consideration all parts of the portfolio if you are doing it properly, otherwise its hindsight(???) How would you decide to not increase some or others....or are you simply doing the 'dogs of the dow ' theory and buying laggards but with extra leverage on top of a evenly balanced portfolio.

eg; buy 2 at $1, when one goes to $2 and the other is at $1, you dont sell any at $2, but simply buy the more of the one still at $1.

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''

I think I am getting at what you are talking about.....I remember doing a test once that had a portfolio limitation of not having too many correlated instruments and so it did not rebalance but it did not take new entries in what we determined to be highly correlated instruments if you were 'full up' in that sector. In a classic do your head in thing, during the Internet bubble approx 2000, because the portfolio was full of equities already it never took the nasdq buy signals. This meant massive underperformance of a benchmark.....and because we never rebalanced it never changed. When introducing variants (even small ones) for rebalancing, or spreading over further instruments, or even concentrating it more it had big changes in return profiles, and this also looked different over the time frame of the tests - eg; it never had the same issue when the naq burst and it even managed to put on a short.

So my guess is all you can do is simply test and see what happens over the long run and what you can live with....sometimes its great to be full tilt othertimes not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but my confusion. (too much beer on the weekend in Prague)

 

It's probably me not explaining myself clearly enough to be honest :)

 

If you are rebalancing your whole porftolio, then you must be doing it taking into consideration all parts of the portfolio if you are doing it properly,

 

Yes, but this isn't necessarily linked to the compounding aspect, is it? For example, suppose I draw off any profits so that the account always remained at a fixed amount by month end, but still rebalance the portfolio each month based on a consideration of all parts of the portfolio.

 

The allocation of reinvested profits could differ from the allocations of the rebalanced portfolio aside from these. For example . . . 10k account with 60% (6k) allocated to Stock A . . . 1k portfolio profit at month end . . . Monthly rebalance, 70% of 10k (7k) allocated to Stock A, but only 30% of profits (300) allocated to Stock A, so position size is 7,300, and not 70% of 11k (7,700).

 

....or are you simply doing the 'dogs of the dow ' theory and buying laggards but with extra leverage on top of a evenly balanced portfolio.

 

Quite the opposite - it's basically "relative strength" - increase position size for the leaders, reduce position size for the laggards . . . then a load of fancy machine-learning thrown at it (purely for my own gratification and entertainment - think basic strategy returns 13%, me playing around with code for a year might add at best 2% and smooth volatility of returns if I'm lucky!).

 

You can see the shifts in weighting of each component in the subpane of the curve I've attached. One component always has a weight of zero (at the minute, metals).

 

We're talking very long term outlook here :)

 

So my guess is all you can do is simply test and see what happens over the long run and what you can live with....sometimes its great to be full tilt othertimes not.

 

Sure. I've done this, and I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm doing.

 

In a previous thread here I argued that the individual components of a portfolio should be 'rewarded' with increased position size dependent on their unique performance; I now find myself doing the opposite and spreading the benefit from components that have performed strongly to 'reward' equally those that have underperformed. And yet that's what masses of testing tells me is the right thing to do.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Allocation.thumb.png.e557b38b3cdff54683b46c683b350acb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but this isn't necessarily linked to the compounding aspect, is it? For example, suppose I draw off any profits so that the account always remained at a fixed amount by month end, but still rebalance the portfolio each month based on a consideration of all parts of the portfolio.

 

The allocation of reinvested profits could differ from the allocations of the rebalanced portfolio aside from these. For example . . . 10k account with 60% (6k) allocated to Stock A . . . 1k portfolio profit at month end . . . Monthly rebalance, 70% of 10k (7k) allocated to Stock A, but only 30% of profits (300) allocated to Stock A, so position size is 7,300, and not 70% of 11k (7,700).

 

........

 

In a previous thread here I argued that the individual components of a portfolio should be 'rewarded' with increased position size dependent on their unique performance; I now find myself doing the opposite and spreading the benefit from components that have performed strongly to 'reward' equally those that have underperformed. And yet that's what masses of testing tells me is the right thing to do.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Hi, I thought I got it but now I am confused again (too much wine tonight)....from your example at the end of the month, its like you are reweighting based on 2 different formula components.

A normal reweighting formula --- this takes you from 60% to 70% for stock A and

An inverse profit formula - you are taking the profit for the month (1k) and rebalancing on a % of that, as an inverse % of the total weighting.

Hence you are actually increasing your winners by a smaller amount if there is a profit (assuming the first normal reweighting formula is flat).

 

So I get that you are now reweighting across all portfolio instruments. Regardless of where the PL came from.

 

I dont think compounding makes much difference as to how you are getting it as it looks more like you are capturing a little bit of both trend following and mean reversion. Like having a mix of two strategies in one, and you are making the most of the only free lunch there is - diversification......which makes a lot of sense....and is an interesting take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A normal reweighting formula --- this takes you from 60% to 70% for stock A and

An inverse profit formula - you are taking the profit for the month (1k) and rebalancing on a % of that, as an inverse % of the total weighting.

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

My lack of clarity again (and sadly I've had neither beer nor wine for several days).

 

The "Stock A/B" example I gave was purely by way of explaining that reinvested returns could be allocated with a separate criteria to the one used for rebalancing. So profits would not have to be distributed back to the poorer performing components.

 

This isn't what I'm doing though . . .

 

So I get that you are now reweighting across all portfolio instruments. Regardless of where the PL came from.

 

That's correct.

 

I dont think compounding makes much difference as to how you are getting it as it looks more like you are capturing a little bit of both trend following and mean reversion.

 

That's what I have concluded, although the intention was to capture the former (as my swing trading account focuses on mean reversion and I wanted diversification of styles across the two accounts).

 

As always, thanks for your thoughts and help.

 

Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

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

    • #analysis #forex #followme #socialtrading The #GBPUSD is trading at 1.2410 due to no positive Brexit developments and an on-going Parliament deadlock at the UK. The #UK #PM Boris Johnson’s Luxembourg visit failed to provide any key updates. The EU President criticized the Tory leaders’ depth of details while British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab reiterated the PM”s pledge to leave on October 31 and also passing the bucket of criticism back to the EU. The #USD stays on the front foot as the recent rise in #safe-haven demand, mainly due to the attacks of Saudi Arabia, joins hands with optimism surrounding the US-China trade talks, up for early October. While the absence of data, except the US Industrial Production for August, is likely in support of carrying the previous move forward, any positive to the UK PM during the first day of hearings at the UK’s Supreme court could help the Cable recover some of its latest losses. #TechnicalAnalysis Unless providing a daily closing beyond 100-day simple moving average (DMA) level near 1.2510, the quote is less likely to rise towards mid-July highs surrounding 1.2580, which in turn highlights the importance of 1.2380 and 50-DMA level of 1.2280 during further declines.  
    • Another Best Broker award for HotForex! Dear Client, We are thrilled to announce that International Finance Awards has named HotForex the Best Forex & Commodities Broker in Latin America! A HotForex spokesman said: “This new award is an excellent addition to our 25+ existing awards and demonstrates our continued success in establishing ourselves as a market leader with global reach, committed to providing our clients with the best possible client-centric trading experience.” Thank you for all your support, and for choosing us as your broker of choice! Kind regards, The HotForex Team
    • #WeekAhead  #forex  #news  #followme  #socialtrading Hey friends! Happy new week. Here are the data highlights for this week: (GMT+8) Monday: 10:00      Chinese industrial production, fixed asset investment and retail sales     Tuesday: 09:30   RBA Meeting Minutes 17:00     German ZEW economic sentiment and 21:15     US industrial production   Wednesday 16:30     UK Consumer Price Index (YoY) (Aug) 20:30     Canada BoC CPI   Thursday: 02:00   US FOMC Economic Projections 02:00   US Fed's Monetary Policy Statement REPORT 02:00   US Fed Interest Rate Decision 02:30   US FOMC Press Conference SPEECH 06:45   AUD Gross Domestic Product (QoQ) (Q2) 09:30   AUD Employment Change s.a. (Aug) 09:30   AUD Unemployment Rate s.a. (Aug) 10:00   JPY BoJ Interest Rate Decision 10:00   JPY BoJ Monetary Policy Statement REPORT 14:00   JPY BoJ Press Conference SPEECH 19:00   UK BoE Asset Purchase Facility 19:00   UK BoE Interest Rate Decision 19:00   UK BoE MPC Vote Hike 19:00   UK Bank of England Minutes REPORT 19:00   UK BoE MPC Vote Cut 19:00   UK BoE MPC Vote Unchanged   Friday: 20:30   Canadian Retail Sales (MoM) (Jul)   #FederalReserve is expected to cut rate about 25-basis point. It would be a major shock if the Fed doesn’t deliver. But some, including Donald Trump, want more than just 25 basis points. In fact, the US President has called for “boneheads” Fed to cut rates to zero or lower in a tweet this week. Understandably, with US data not deteriorating as badly as, say, Germany, the Fed is reluctant to cut aggressively and rightly so. The risk therefore is that the Fed refuses to provide a dovish outlook for interest rates. In this potential scenario, a rate cut might only weigh on the dollar momentarily. With most other major central banks already being or turning dovish, the Fed will also need to be super dovish for the dollar to end its bullish trend. Otherwise, the greenback may find renewed bullish momentum, even if the Fed cuts by 25 basis points.     The #Swiss National Bank will have to say about the #ECB’s decision to resume bond buying, given the recent appreciation of the franc against the shared currency. The #BoJ is unlikely to respond to the #ECB’s resumption of bond buying. It may keep the current policy of controlling the yield curve. For one, the global economy hasn’t deteriorated too significantly to exacerbate deflationary pressures in the export-oriented Japanese economy. For another, the there’s only limited number of policy options left at the BoJ's disposal. Thus, cutting short-term interest rates further into the negative may be an option, but to be used on another occasion.
    • Hi everyone, The latest Commitments of Traders review is out. Brazilian Real COT Change (52W) / C - 54%, LS – 54% / FTG Score / D -24,1, W -36,7, M -25,9 / All major cot signals are indicating that we have a good chance to see the market to rally. Wheat (Minn.) COT Extreme / C, LS – All Time COT extreme / FTG Score / D -25.7, W -31.3, M -29.7/ All time cot extremes are always highly valued, but we should be careful, since history has proven that we can be in such a place for a long time before we see the major trend change… Nevertheless we should be prepared to see Wheat go higher. Sugar COT Extreme / C, LS – All Time COT extreme / FTG Score / D -28.6, W 26.4, M -45.2 / Well I could simply copy+paste what I just wrote for Wheat but actually there are some differences here… If you look carefully, you may find Sugar to be in a bullish extreme since mid 2017, and we have still not been able to leave the bear market…. So even with this all time cot extreme, one should be willing to accept the high chance that Sugar will stay low even with such extremes! All the best, Dunstan COT Charts FOREX Trading Futures Trading
    • Date : 16th September 2019. MACRO EVENTS & NEWS OF 16th September 2019.Welcome to our weekly agenda, our briefing of all the key financial events globally. The week ahead is expected to be a massive one, as four of the major Central banks will announce their rate decision, i.e. Fed, BoJ, SNB and BoE. There is a lot of interest in seeing whether BoJ will follow the Fed’s steps next week in cutting rates. Monday – 16 September 2019   Industrial Production and Retail Sales (CNY, GMT 02:00) – The Chinese Industrial Production growth is expected to have risen, at 5.2% y/y in August from 4.8% y/y last month. A slightly positive reading is also expected in the Retail Sales figure at 7.9% from 7.6%. Tuesday – 17 September 2019   Monetary Policy Meeting Minutes (AUD, GMT 01:30) – The RBA minutes, similar to the ECB Reports, provide a detailed assessment of the bank’s most recent policy-setting meeting, containing in-depth insights into the economic conditions that influenced the rate decision. They are usually a cause for FX turbulence. ZEW Economic Sentiment (EUR, GMT 09:00) – Economic Sentiment for September is projected at -38.0, from the lowest level since 2011 at -44.1 seen last month, as the current conditions indicator for Germany turned negative. The ZEW is a pretty clear indication that investors are gearing up for a much higher risk of a global recession, which ties in with developments in global bond yields and the marked flattening of curves. Wednesday – 18 September 2019   Consumer Price Index (GBP, GMT 08:30) – The UK CPI inflation is anticipated to be more underwhelming than the July data, at 1.9% y/y from 2.1% y/y, with a monthly rise up to 0.5% m/m. Consumer Price Index and Core (EUR, GMT 09:00) – The final reading of inflation is expected to have held steady at 1.0% y/y and core at 0.9% y/y, with an increase in the monthly number at 0.2%m/m from -0.5%m/m. Lower energy price inflation keep a lid on the overall number meanwhile as CPI excluding energy moved up to 1.2% from 1.1% y/y last month. Consumer Price Index (CAD, GMT 12:30) – The August CPI is expected to continue adding to the backing for steady BoC policy this year, even as the Fed and ECB add stimulus. CPI has been forecasted to grow to a 1.7% y/y pace in August, below the 2.0% last month. Interest Rate Decision, Monetary Policy Statement and Press Conference (USD, GMT 18:00-18:30) – The August’s jobs data did little to alter the market’s expectations for a 25bp rate cut at the September 17-18 FOMC meeting. Based on Powell’s latest comments, the Fed is very committed to a symmetric 2% inflation goal, hence given low inflation, interest rates will remain low. That leaves very little room to cut rates further. The Fed is not forecasting or expecting a US recession, nor a global downturn, said Powell. The fact that the chair doesn’t seem too concerned about a recession in the States, or the world, suggests the FOMC is not going to be aggressive easing policy. Thursday – 19 September 2019   Interest Rate Decision, Monetary Policy Statement (JPY, GMT 02:00) – The BoJ kept its short-term interest rate target at -0.1% and its pledge to guide 10-year JGB yields around 0% while maintaining its asset buying program. The central bank is expected to signal once again its commitment to keep interest rates at current levels “for an extended period of time, at least through around spring 2020”. The BoJ pledged to keep an eye on the output gap, but for now at least it seems the bank is seeing the risks as coming mainly from the outside. Interest Rate Decision, Monetary Policy Statement (CHF, GMT 07:30) – The SNB kept policy on hold at the June council meeting. The Libor target was replaced with a key policy rate, but the central bank was adamant that the degree of monetary accommodation remains unchanged. After the ECB cut rates, while the Fed is now widely expected to ease rates, the SNB has little room to manoeuvre, especially against the backdrop of ongoing Brexit uncertainty and geopolitical trade risks. The SNB’s central message remains that the situation remains fragile and the currency “highly valued”. Interest Rate Decision, MPC Voting (GBP, GMT 11:00) – Shadowed by the ongoing political developments in Brexit, the BoE is not expected to proceed with any interest rate actions. Friday – 20 September 2019   Retail Sales ex Autos (CAD, GMT 12:30) – Retail sales and Core for August are seen steady, while the headline is anticipated to drop to 2.9% y/y from 3.3% and core to 2.5% from 2.9%. 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 HotForex Economic calendar.Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding on how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!Click HERE to READ more Market news. Andria Pichidi Market Analyst HotForex 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 FX and CFDs 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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