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.

Lwayne11

I lost my funds

Recommended Posts

I had a bad experience in trading. I did lost $17,350 in total and i when i try to cash out one story or the other keep coming up to me at every giving point of time so i give up on them.after several weeks i came across this agency,expert recovery that help me get back about 75 percent of my lost funds. I learnt thee is a class action court proceeding to sue scam binary companies but I believe that takes more time and money paid to lawyers is way expensive. You can talk to a recovery expert.
Reach Asherellazar at protonmail dot com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 8:01 AM, Lwayne11 said:

I had a bad experience in trading. I did lost $17,350 in total and i when i try to cash out one story or the other keep coming up to me at every giving point of time so i give up on them.after several weeks i came across this agency,expert recovery that help me get back about 75 percent of my lost funds. I learnt thee is a class action court proceeding to sue scam binary companies but I believe that takes more time and money paid to lawyers is way expensive. You can talk to a recovery expert.
Reach Asherellazar at protonmail dot com

I'd actually pay to watch people like you being excecuted live on youtube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are lots of people who have been scammed one way or the other through fake binary options sites out there that’s why i advice people to properly carry out a research about where you’re investing before putting your money cos you don’t want any stories afterwards. We’ve all been scammed one way or the other and i’ve been scammed too when i was carrying out a research on the proper place to invest. Before i found the right investment site i’ve been scammed by different fake investment sites which was totally crazy and hurtful so i started to carry out a research on how to get my money back and i noticed they are also fake sites out there who lie about helping you recover your money back only to scam you again.

In all my research i was able to find the right site that help me recover all my funds which was totally unbelievable cos they did as promise.  (REALFUNDSRECOVERY AT GMAIL DOT COM) is a tech company that uses top military grade technology to help recover funds, hack anything from social media accounts to emails and they also help track and figure out a cheating spouse. Thanks to (Realhacker)  I was able to get all my money I lost back. I was really thankful to them cos they made the impossible possible and it really got me excited.

Note: stay away from people who claim to be hackers and that they can recover your money back and they drop their emails for you to contact them. Stay away from such people giving you emails to contact them with cos they are scams.

Firstly it goes without saying, prevention is better than cure so please try not to fall for this scams out there and make proper research. I hope this helps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Albertson said:

They are lots of people who have been scammed one way or the other through fake binary options sites out there that’s why i advice people to properly carry out a research about where you’re investing before putting your money cos you don’t want any stories afterwards. We’ve all been scammed one way or the other and i’ve been scammed too when i was carrying out a research on the proper place to invest. Before i found the right investment site i’ve been scammed by different fake investment sites which was totally crazy and hurtful so i started to carry out a research on how to get my money back and i noticed they are also fake sites out there who lie about helping you recover your money back only to scam you again.

In all my research i was able to find the right site that help me recover all my funds which was totally unbelievable cos they did as promise.  (REALFUNDSRECOVERY AT GMAIL DOT COM) is a tech company that uses top military grade technology to help recover funds, hack anything from social media accounts to emails and they also help track and figure out a cheating spouse. Thanks to (Realhacker)  I was able to get all my money I lost back. I was really thankful to them cos they made the impossible possible and it really got me excited.

Note: stay away from people who claim to be hackers and that they can recover your money back and they drop their emails for you to contact them. Stay away from such people giving you emails to contact them with cos they are scams.

Firstly it goes without saying, prevention is better than cure so please try not to fall for this scams out there and make proper research. I hope this helps

 

 

FUCK OFF

Edited by mitsubishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read this (wikipedia)

 
Bernie Madoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff

Educate yourself..

 

Born
Bernard Lawrence Madoff

April 29, 1938 (aghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoffe 81)
Alma mater Hofstra University
Occupation Stock broker, investment adviser, financier
Employer Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
Known for Being the chairman of NASDAQ and the Madoff investment scandal
Criminal status Incarcerated at Federal Correctional Complex, Butner
FBP Register #61727-054
Pseudo-release: November 14, 2139
Spouse(s)
Ruth Madoff (m. 1959)
Children Mark Madoff (1964–2010)
Andrew Madoff (1966–2014)
 
Conviction(s) March 12, 2009 (pleaded guilty)
Criminal charge Securities fraud, investment advisor fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, false statements, perjury, making false filings with the SEC, theft from an employee benefit plan
Penalty life without parole and forfeiture of US$17.179 billion

Bernard Lawrence Madoff (/ˈmdɔːf/;[1] born April 29, 1938) is an American former market maker, investment advisor and financier who is currently serving a federal prison sentence for offenses related to a massive Ponzi scheme.[2] He is the former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market,[3] the confessed operator of the largest Ponzi scheme in world history, and the largest financial fraud in U.S. history.[4] Prosecutors estimated the fraud to be worth $64.8 billion based on the amounts in the accounts of Madoff's 4,800 clients as of November 30, 2008.[5]

Madoff founded a penny stock brokerage in 1960 which eventually grew into Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. He served as its chairman until his arrest on December 11, 2008.[6][7] The firm was one of the top market maker businesses on Wall Street,[8] which bypassed "specialist" firms by directly executing orders over the counter from retail brokers.[9]

At the firm, he employed his brother Peter Madoff as senior managing director and chief compliance officer, Peter's daughter Shana Madoff as the firm's rules and compliance officer and attorney, and his now deceased sons Andrew and Mark. Peter was sentenced to 10 years in prison[10] and Mark committed suicide by hanging exactly two years after his father's arrest.[11][12][13] Andrew died of lymphoma on September 3, 2014.[14]

On December 10, 2008, Madoff's sons told authorities that their father had confessed to them that the asset management unit of his firm was a massive Ponzi scheme, and quoted him as saying that it was "one big lie".[15][16][17] The following day, FBI agents arrested Madoff and charged him with one count of securities fraud. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had previously conducted multiple investigations into his business practices but had not uncovered the massive fraud.[8] On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal felonies and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a massive Ponzi scheme. The Madoff investment scandal defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Madoff said that he began the Ponzi scheme in the early 1990s, but federal investigators believe that the fraud began as early as the mid-1980s[18] and may have begun as far back as the 1970s.[19] Those charged with recovering the missing money believe that the investment operation may never have been legitimate.[20][21] The amount missing from client accounts was almost $65 billion, including fabricated gains.[22] The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) trustee estimated actual losses to investors of $18 billion.[20] On June 29, 2009, Madoff was sentenced to a de facto life in prison but officially 150 years in prison, the maximum allowed.[23][24]

 

  •  
  •  
  •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
      •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Early life

Madoff was born on April 29, 1938, in Queens, New York, to Jewish parents Ralph Madoff, a plumber and stockbroker, and Sylvia Muntner.[25][26][27][28] Madoff's grandparents were emigrants from Poland, Romania, and Austria.[29]

He is the second of three children; his siblings are Sondra Weiner and Peter Madoff.[30][31] Madoff graduated from Far Rockaway High School in 1956.[32]

He attended the University of Alabama for one year, where he became a brother of the Tau Chapter of the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity,[33] then transferred to and graduated from Hofstra University in 1960 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.[34][35] Madoff briefly attended Brooklyn Law School, but founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and remained working for his own company.[36][37]

Career

At the time of his arrest on December 11, 2008, Madoff was the chairman of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.[38]

The firm started in 1960 as a penny stock trader with $5,000 ($43,000 today) that Madoff earned from working as a lifeguard and sprinkler installer.[39] He further secured a loan of $50,000 from his father-in-law which he also used to set up the firm. His business grew with the assistance of his father-in-law, accountant Saul Alpern, who referred a circle of friends and their families.[40] Initially, the firm made markets (quoted bid and ask prices) via the National Quotation Bureau's Pink Sheets. In order to compete with firms that were members of the New York Stock Exchange trading on the stock exchange's floor, his firm began using innovative computer information technology to disseminate its quotes.[41] After a trial run, the technology that the firm helped to develop became the NASDAQ.[42] After 41 years as a sole proprietorship, the Madoff firm incorporated in 2001 as a limited liability company with Madoff as the sole shareholder.[43]

The firm functioned as a third-market provider, bypassing exchange specialist firms by directly executing orders over the counter from retail brokers.[9] At one point, Madoff Securities was the largest market maker at the NASDAQ, and in 2008 was the sixth-largest market maker on Wall Street.[41] The firm also had an investment management and advisory division, which it did not publicize, that was the focus of the fraud investigation.[44]

Madoff was "the first prominent practitioner"[45] of payment for order flow, in which a dealer pays a broker for the right to execute a customer's order. This has been called a "legal kickback."[46] Some academics have questioned the ethics of these payments.[47][48] Madoff argued that these payments did not alter the price that the customer received.[49] He viewed the payments as a normal business practice:

If your girlfriend goes to buy stockings at a supermarket, the racks that display those stockings are usually paid for by the company that manufactured the stockings. Order flow is an issue that attracted a lot of attention but is grossly overrated.[49]

Madoff was active in the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), a self-regulatory securities-industry organization. He served as chairman of its board of directors, and was a member of its board of governors.[50]

Government access

From 1991 to 2008, Bernie and Ruth Madoff contributed about $240,000 to federal candidates, parties and committees, including $25,000 a year from 2005 through 2008 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Committee returned $100,000 of the Madoffs' contributions to Irving Picard, the bankruptcy trustee who oversees all claims, and Senator Charles E. Schumer returned almost $30,000 received from Madoff and his relatives to the trustee. Senator Christopher J. Dodd donated $1,500 to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, a Madoff victim.[51]

Members of the Madoff family have served as leaders of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the primary securities industry organization.[52] Bernard Madoff served on the board of directors of the Securities Industry Association, a precursor of SIFMA, and was chairman of its trading committee.[53][54] He was a founding board member of the DTCC subsidiary in London, the International Securities Clearing Corporation.[55][56]

Madoff's brother Peter served two terms as a member of SIFMA's Board of Directors. He and Andrew received awards from SIFMA in 2008 for "extraordinary leadership and service".[57] He resigned from the Board of Directors of SIFMA in December 2008, as news of the Ponzi scheme broke.[52] From 2000-08, the Madoffs brothers donated $56,000 directly to SIFMA, and paid additional money as sponsors of industry meetings.[58] Bernard Madoff's niece Shana Madoff was a member of the Executive Committee of SIFMA's Compliance & Legal Division, but resigned shortly after the arrest.[59]

Madoff's name first came up in a fraud investigation in 1992, when two people complained to the SEC about investments they made with Avellino & Bienes, the successor to his father-in-law's accounting practice. For years, Alpern and two of his colleagues, Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes, had raised money for Madoff, a practice that continued after Avellino and Bienes took over the firm in the 1970s.[60] Avellino returned the money to investors and the SEC closed the case.[61] In 2004, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, a lawyer in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), informed her supervisor branch chief Mark Donohue that her review of Madoff found numerous inconsistencies, and recommended further questioning. However, she was told by Donohue and his boss Eric Swanson to stop work on the Madoff investigation, send them her work results, and instead investigate the mutual fund industry. Swanson, Assistant Director of the SEC's OCIE,[62] had met Shana Madoff in 2003 while investigating her uncle Bernie Madoff and his firm. The investigation was concluded in 2005. In 2006 Swanson left the SEC and became engaged to Shana Madoff, and in 2007 the two married.[63][64] A spokesman for Swanson said he "did not participate in any inquiry of Bernard Madoff Securities or its affiliates while involved in a relationship" with Shana Madoff.[65]

While awaiting sentencing, Madoff met with the SEC's Inspector General, H. David Kotz, who conducted an investigation into how regulators had failed to detect the fraud despite numerous red flags.[66] Madoff said he could have been caught in 2003, but that bumbling investigators had acted like "Lt. Colombo" and never asked the right questions:

I was astonished. They never even looked at my stock records. If investigators had checked with The Depository Trust Company, a central securities depository, it would've been easy for them to see. If you're looking at a Ponzi scheme, it's the first thing you do.[67]

Madoff said in the June 17, 2009, interview that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro was a "dear friend", and SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter was a "terrific lady" whom he knew "pretty well".[68]

After Madoff's arrest, the SEC was criticized for its lack of financial expertise and lack of due diligence, despite having received complaints from Harry Markopolos and others for almost a decade. The SEC's Inspector General, Kotz, found that since 1992, there had been six investigations of Madoff by the SEC, which were botched either through incompetent staff work or by neglecting allegations of financial experts and whistle-blowers. At least some of the SEC investigators doubted whether Madoff was even trading.[69][70][71]

Due to concerns of improper conduct by Inspector General Kotz in the Madoff investigation, Inspector General David C. Williams of the United States Postal Service was brought in to conduct an independent outside review.[72]

The Williams Report questioned Kotz's work on the Madoff investigation, because Kotz was a "very good friend" with Markopolos.[73][74] Investigators were not able to determine when Kotz and Markopolos became friends. A violation of the ethics rule would have taken place if the friendship were concurrent with Kotz's investigation of Madoff.[73][75]

Investment scandal

In 1999, financial analyst Harry Markopolos had informed the SEC that he believed it was legally and mathematically impossible to achieve the gains Madoff claimed to deliver. According to Markopolos, it took him four minutes to conclude that Madoff's numbers did not add up, and another minute to suspect they were likely fraudulent.[76]

After four hours of failed attempts to replicate Madoff's numbers, Markopolos believed he had mathematically proved Madoff was a fraud.[77] He was ignored by the SEC's Boston office in 2000 and 2001, as well as by Meaghan Cheung at the SEC's New York office in 2005 and 2007 when he presented further evidence. He has since co-authored a book with Gaytri Kachroo (the leader of his legal team) titled No One Would Listen. The book details the frustrating efforts he and his legal team made over a ten-year period to alert the government, the industry, and the press about Madoff's fraud.[76]

Although Madoff's wealth management business ultimately grew into a multibillion-dollar operation, none of the major derivatives firms traded with him because they did not believe his numbers were real. None of the major Wall Street firms invested with him, and several high-ranking executives at those firms suspected his operations and claims were not legitimate.[77] Others contended it was inconceivable that the growing volume of Madoff's accounts could be competently and legitimately serviced by his documented accounting/auditing firm, a three-person firm with only one active accountant.[78]

The Central Bank of Ireland failed to spot Madoff's gigantic fraud when he started using Irish funds and had to supply large amounts of information, which would have been enough to enable Irish regulators to uncover the fraud much earlier than late 2008 when he was finally arrested in New York.[79][80][81]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation report and federal prosecutors' complaint says that during the first week of December 2008, Madoff confided to a senior employee, identified by Bloomberg News as one of his sons, that he said he was struggling to meet $7 billion in redemptions.[15] For years, Madoff had simply deposited investors' money in his business account at JPMorganChase and withdrew money from that account when they requested redemptions. He had scraped together just enough money to make a redemption payment on November 19. However, despite getting cash infusions from several longtime investors, by the week after Thanksgiving it was apparent that there was not enough money to even begin to meet the remaining requests. His Chase account had over $5.5 billion in mid-2008, but by late November was down to $234 million—not even a fraction of the outstanding redemptions. On December 3, he told longtime assistant Frank DiPascali, who had overseen the fraudulent advisory business, that he was finished. On December 9, he told his brother about the fraud.[60][21]

According to the sons, Madoff told Mark Madoff on the following day, December 9, that he planned to pay out $173 million in bonuses two months early.[82] Madoff said that "he had recently made profits through business operations, and that now was a good time to distribute it."[15] Mark told Andrew Madoff, and the next morning they went to their father's office and asked him how he could pay bonuses to his staff if he was having trouble paying clients. They then traveled to Madoff's apartment, where with Ruth Madoff nearby, Madoff told them he was "finished," that he had "absolutely nothing" left, and that his investment fund was "just one big lie" and "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme."[82][21]

According to their attorney, Madoff's sons then reported their father to federal authorities.[15] Madoff had intended to wind up his operations over the remainder of the week before having his sons turn him in; he directed DiPascali to use the remaining money in his business account to cash out the accounts of several family members and favored friends.[60] However, as soon as they left their father's apartment, Mark and Andrew immediately contacted a lawyer, who in turn got them in touch with federal prosecutors and the SEC.[21] On December 11, 2008, Madoff was arrested and charged with securities fraud.[17]

Madoff posted $10 million bail in December 2008 and remained under 24-hour monitoring and house arrest in his Upper East Side penthouse apartment until March 12, 2009, when Judge Denny Chin revoked his bail and remanded him to the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Chin ruled that Madoff was a flight risk because of his age, his wealth, and the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.[83] Prosecutors filed two asset forfeiture pleadings which include lists of valuable real and personal property as well as financial interests and entities owned or controlled by Madoff.[84]

Madoff's lawyer, Ira Sorkin, filed an appeal, which prosecutors opposed.[84] On March 20, 2009, an appellate court denied Madoff's request to be released from jail and returned to home confinement until his sentencing on June 29, 2009. On June 22, 2009, Sorkin hand-delivered a customary pre-sentencing letter to the judge requesting a sentence of 12 years, because of tables from the Social Security Administration that his life span was predicted to be 13 years.[66][85]

On June 26, 2009, Chin ordered forfeiture of $170 million in Madoff's assets. Prosecutors asked Chin to sentence Madoff to 150 years in prison.[86][87][88]Bankruptcy Trustee Irving Picard indicated that "Mr. Madoff has not provided meaningful cooperation or assistance."[89]

In settlement with federal prosecutors, Madoff's wife Ruth agreed to forfeit her claim to $85 million in assets, leaving her with $2.5 million in cash.[90] The order allowed the SEC and Court appointed trustee Irving Picard to pursue Ruth Madoff's funds.[89]Massachusetts regulators also accused her of withdrawing $15 million from company-related accounts shortly before he confessed.[91]

In February 2009, Madoff reached an agreement with the SEC.[92] It was later revealed that as part of the agreement, Madoff accepted a lifetime ban from the securities industry.[93]

Picard sued Madoff's sons, Mark and Andrew, his brother Peter, and Peter's daughter, Shana, for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, for $198 million. The defendants had received over $80 million in compensation since 2001.[94][95]

Mechanics of the fraud

According to the SEC indictment against Annette Bongiorno and Joann Crupi, two back office workers who worked for Madoff, they created false trading reports based on the returns that Madoff ordered for each customer.[96]

For example, when Madoff determined a customer's return, one of the back office workers would enter a false trade report with a previous date and then enter a false closing trade in the amount required to produce the required profit, according to the indictment.[97] Prosecutors allege that Bongiorno used a computer program specially designed to backdate trades and manipulate account statements. They quote her as writing to a manager in the early 1990s, "I need the ability to give any settlement date I want."[96] In some cases, returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[97]

On a daily basis, DiPascali and his team on the 17th floor of the Lipstick Building—where the scam was based (Madoff's brokerage was based on the 19th floor, while the main entrance and conference room were on the 18th floor)—watched the closing price of the S&P 100. They then picked the best-performing stocks and used them to create bogus "baskets" of stocks as the basis for false trading records, which Madoff claimed were generated from his supposed "split-strike conversion" strategy, in which he bought blue-chip stocks and took options contracts on them. They frequently made their "trades" at a stock's monthly high or low, resulting in the high "returns" that they touted to customers. On occasion, they slipped up and dated trades as taking place on weekends and federal holidays, though this was never caught.[21]

Over the years, Madoff admonished his investors to keep quiet about their relationship with him. This was because he was well aware of the finite limits that existed for a legitimate split-strike conversion. He knew that if the amount he "managed" became known, investors would question whether he could trade on the scale he claimed without the market reacting to his activity, or whether there were enough options to hedge his stock purchases.[60]

At least as early as 2001, Harry Markopolos discovered that for Madoff's strategy to be legitimate, he would have had to buy more options on the Chicago Board Options Exchange than actually existed.[76] Additionally, at least one hedge fund manager revealed that she balked at investing with Madoff because she did not believe there was enough volume to support his purported trading activity.[21]

Madoff admitted during his March 2009 guilty plea that the essence of his scheme was to deposit client money into a Chase account, rather than invest it and generate steady returns as clients had believed. When clients wanted their money, "I used the money in the Chase Manhattan bank account that belonged to them or other clients to pay the requested funds," he told the court.[98]

Madoff maintained that he began his fraud in the early 1990s, prosecutors believed it was underway as early as the 1980s. DiPascali, for instance, told prosecutors that he knew the investment advisory business was a sham at some point in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[60] An investigator charged with reconstructing Madoff's scheme believes that the fraud was well underway as early as 1964. Reportedly, Madoff told an acquaintance soon after his arrest that the fraud began "almost immediately" after his firm opened his doors. Bongiorno, who spent over 40 years with Madoff, told investigators that she was doing "the same things she was doing in 2008" that she did when she first joined the firm.[21]

Affinity fraud

Madoff targeted wealthy American Jewish communities, using his in-group status to obtain investments from Jewish individuals and institutions. Affected Jewish charitable organizations considered victims of this affinity fraud include Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, the Elie Wiesel Foundation and Steven Spielberg's Wunderkinder Foundation. Jewish federations and hospitals lost millions of dollars, forcing some organizations to close. The Lappin Foundation, for instance, was forced to close temporarily because it had invested its funds with Madoff.[99]

Size of loss to investors

David Sheehan, chief counsel to trustee Picard, stated on September 27, 2009, that about $36 billion was invested into the scam, returning $18 billion to investors, with $18 billion missing. About half of Madoff's investors were "net winners," earning more than their investment. The withdrawal amounts in the final six years were subject to "clawback" (return of money) lawsuits.[20]

In a May 4, 2011, statement, trustee Picard said that the total fictitious amounts owed to customers (with some adjustments) were $57 billion, of which $17.3 billion was actually invested by customers. $7.6 billion has been recovered, but pending lawsuits, only $2.6 billion is available to repay victims.[100] If all the recovered funds are returned to victims, their net loss would be under $10 billion.

The Internal Revenue Service ruled that investors' capital losses in this and other fraudulent investment schemes will be treated as business losses, thereby allowing the victims to claim them as net operating losses to reduce tax liability more easily.[101]

The size of the fraud was stated as $65 billion early in the investigation.[100] Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt estimated the actual net fraud to be between $10 and $17 billion.[102] One difference between the estimates concerns the method of calculation. One method calculates losses as the total amount that victims thought they were owed, but will never receive. The smaller estimates use a different method, subtracting the total cash received from the scheme from the total cash paid into the scheme, after excluding from the calculation persons accused of collaborating with the scheme, persons who invested through "feeder funds," and anyone who received more cash from the scheme than they paid in. Erin Arvedlund, who publicly questioned Madoff's reported investment performance in 2001, stated that the actual amount of the fraud might never be known, but was likely between $12 and $20 billion.[103][104][105]

Jeffry Picower, rather than Madoff, appears to have been the largest beneficiary of Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and his estate settled the claims against it for $7.2 billion.[106][107]

Entities and individuals affiliated with Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz received $300 million in respect of investments in the scheme. Wilpon and Katz "categorically reject[ed]" the charge that they "ignored warning signs" about Madoff's fraud.[108]

On November 9, 2017, the U.S. government announced that it would begin paying out $772.5 million to more than 24,000 victims of the Ponzi scheme.[109]

Plea, sentencing, and prison life

On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal felonies, including securities fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, making false statements, perjury, theft from an employee benefit plan, and making false filings with the SEC. The plea was the response to a criminal complaint filed two days earlier, which stated that over the past 20 years, Madoff had defrauded his clients of almost $65 billion in the largest Ponzi scheme in history. Madoff insisted he was solely responsible for the fraud.[69][110] Madoff did not plea bargain with the government. Rather, he pleaded guilty to all charges. It has been speculated that Madoff pleaded guilty instead of cooperating with the authorities in order to avoid naming any associates and co-conspirators who were involved with him in the scheme.[111][112]

In November 2009, David G. Friehling, Madoff's accounting front man and auditor, pleaded guilty to securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, making false filings to the SEC, and obstructing the IRS. He admitted to merely rubber-stamping Madoff's filings rather than auditing them.[113] Friehling extensively cooperated with federal prosecutors and testified at the trials of five former Madoff employees, all of whom were convicted and sentenced to between 2 and a half and 10 years in prison. Although he could have been sentenced to more than 100 years in prison, because of his cooperation, Friehling was sentenced in May 2015 to one year of home detention and one year of supervised release.[114] His involvement made the Madoff scheme by far the largest accounting fraud in history.

Madoff's right-hand man and financial chief, Frank DiPascali, pleaded guilty to 10 federal charges in 2009 and (like Friehling) testified for the government at the trial of five former colleagues, all of whom were convicted. DiPascali faced a sentence of up to 125 years, but he died of lung cancer in May 2015, before he could be sentenced.[115][116]

In his plea allocution, Madoff stated he began his Ponzi scheme in 1991. He admitted he had never made any legitimate investments with his clients' money during this time. Instead, he said, he simply deposited the money into his personal business account at Chase Manhattan Bank. When his customers asked for withdrawals, he paid them out of the Chase account—a classic "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scenario. Chase and its successor, JPMorgan Chase, may have earned as much as $483 million from his bank account.[117][118] He was committed to satisfying his clients' expectations of high returns, despite an economic recession. He admitted to false trading activities masked by foreign transfers and false SEC filings. He stated that he always intended to resume legitimate trading activity, but it proved "difficult, and ultimately impossible" to reconcile his client accounts. In the end, Madoff said, he realized that his scam would eventually be exposed.[83][119]

On June 29, 2009, Judge Chin sentenced Madoff to the maximum sentence of 150 years in federal prison.[23][120] Madoff's lawyers initially asked the judge to impose a sentence of 7 years, and later requested that the sentence be 12 years, because of Madoff's advanced age of 71 and his limited life expectancy.[121][122]

Madoff apologized to his victims, saying,

I have left a legacy of shame, as some of my victims have pointed out, to my family and my grandchildren. This is something I will live in for the rest of my life. I'm sorry.

He added, "I know that doesn't help you," after his victims recommended to the judge that he receive a life sentence. Judge Chin had not received any mitigating factor letters from friends or family testifying to Madoff's good deeds. "The absence of such support is telling," he said.[123]

Judge Chin also said that Madoff had not been forthcoming about his crimes. "I have a sense Mr. Madoff has not done all that he could do or told all that he knows," said Chin, calling the fraud "extraordinarily evil", "unprecedented", and "staggering", and that the sentence would deter others from committing similar frauds.[124] Judge Chin also agreed with prosecutors' contention that the fraud began at some point in the 1980s. He also noted that Madoff's crimes were "off the charts" since federal sentencing guidelines for fraud only go up to $400 million in losses.[125]

Ruth did not attend court but issued a statement, saying "I am breaking my silence now because my reluctance to speak has been interpreted as indifference or lack of sympathy for the victims of my husband Bernie's crime, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I am embarrassed and ashamed. Like everyone else, I feel betrayed and confused. The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years."[126]

Incarceration

FCIButnerMedium.jpg
 
FCI Butner Medium, where Madoff is incarcerated
 
 
 
LOOKS LIKE A HOLIDAY CAMP TO ME
 
 
 

Madoff's attorney asked the judge to recommend that the Federal Bureau of Prisons place Madoff in the Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, which is located 70 miles (110 km) from Manhattan. The judge, however, only recommended that Madoff be sent to a facility in the Northeast United States. Madoff was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution Butner Medium near Butner, North Carolina, about 45 miles (72 km) northwest of Raleigh; he is Bureau of Prisons Register #61727-054.[127][128] Jeff Gammage of the Philadelphia Inquirer said "Madoff's heavy sentence likely determined his fate."[129]

Madoff's projected release date is November 14, 2139.[128][130] The release date, described as "academic" in Madoff's case because he would have to live to the age of 201, reflects a reduction for good behavior.[131] On October 13, 2009, it was reported that Madoff experienced his first prison yard fight with another inmate, also a senior citizen.[132] When he began his sentence, Madoff's stress levels were so severe that he broke out in hives and other skin maladies soon after.[133]

On December 18, 2009, Madoff was moved to Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and was treated for several facial injuries. A former inmate later claimed that the injuries were received during an alleged altercation with another inmate.[134]

Other news reports described Madoff's injuries as more serious and including "facial fractures, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung".[133][135] The Federal Bureau of Prisons said Madoff signed an affidavit on December 24, 2009, which indicated that he had not been assaulted and that he had been admitted to the hospital for hypertension.[136]

In his letter to his daughter-in-law, Madoff said that he was being treated in prison like a "Mafia don".

They call me either Uncle Bernie or Mr. Madoff. I can't walk anywhere without someone shouting their greetings and encouragement, to keep my spirit up. It's really quite sweet, how concerned everyone is about my well being, including the staff […] It's much safer here than walking the streets of New York.[137]

After an inmate slapped Madoff because he had changed the channel on the TV, it was reported that Madoff befriended Carmine Persico, boss of the Colombo crime family since 1973, one of New York's five American Mafia families.[138] It was believed Persico had intimidated the inmate who slapped Madoff in the face.[139]

Personal life

On November 28, 1959, Madoff married Ruth Alpern,[31][140] whom he had met while attending Far Rockaway High School. The two eventually began dating. Ruth graduated from high school in 1958, and earned her bachelor's degree at Queens College.[141][142] She was employed at the stock market[clarification needed] in Manhattan before[143] working in Madoff's firm, and she founded the Madoff Charitable Foundation.[144] Bernard and Ruth Madoff had two sons: Mark (March 11, 1964 – December 11, 2010),[145] a 1986 graduate of the University of Michigan, and Andrew (April 8, 1966 – September 3, 2014),[146][147] a 1988 graduate of University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Business School.[148][149] Both sons later worked in the trading section alongside paternal cousin Charles Weiner.[41][150]

Several family members worked for Madoff. His younger brother, Peter,[151] an attorney, was Senior Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, and Peter's daughter, Shana Madoff, also an attorney, was the firm's compliance attorney. On the morning of December 11, 2010 — exactly two years after Bernard's arrest — his son Mark was found dead in his New York City apartment. The city medical examiner ruled the cause of death as suicide by hanging.[12][13][152]

Over the years, Madoff's sons had borrowed money from their parents, to purchase homes and other property. Mark Madoff owed his parents $22 million, and Andrew Madoff owed them $9.5 million. There were two loans in 2008 from Bernard Madoff to Andrew: $4.3 million on October 6, and $250,000 on September 21.[153][154] Andrew owned a Manhattan apartment and a home in Greenwich, Connecticut, as did his brother Mark [143] prior to his death.[155]

Following a divorce from his first wife in 2000, Mark withdrew money from an account. Both sons used outside investment firms to run their own private philanthropic foundations.[39][143][156] In March 2003, Andrew Madoff was diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma and eventually returned to work. He was named chairman of the Lymphoma Research Foundation in January 2008, but resigned shortly after his father's arrest.[143]

Peter Madoff (and Andrew Madoff, before his death) remained the targets of a tax fraud investigation by federal prosecutors, according to The Wall Street Journal. David Friehling, Bernard Madoff's tax accountant, who pleaded guilty in a related case, is reportedly assisting in the investigation. According to a civil lawsuit filed in October 2009, trustee Irving Picard alleges that Peter Madoff deposited $32,146 into his Madoff accounts and withdrew over $16 million; Andrew deposited almost $1 million into his accounts and withdrew $17 million; Mark deposited $745,482 and withdrew $18.1 million.[157]

Bernard Madoff lived in Roslyn, New York, in a ranch house through the 1970s. After 1980, he owned an ocean-front residence in Montauk.[158] His primary residence was on Manhattan's Upper East Side,[159] and he was listed as chairman of the building's co-op board.[160] He also owned a home in France and a mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, where he was a member of the Palm Beach Country Club.[161] Madoff owned a 55-foot (17 m) sportfishing yacht named Bull.[160][162] All three homes were auctioned by the U.S. Marshals Service in September 2009.[163][164]

Sheryl Weinstein, former chief financial officer of Hadassah, disclosed in a memoir that she and Madoff had had an affair more than 20 years earlier. As of 1997, when Weinstein left, Hadassah had invested a total of $40 million. By the end of 2008, Hadassah had withdrawn more than $130 million from its Madoff accounts and contends its accounts were valued at $90 million at the time of Madoff's arrest. At the victim impact sentencing hearing, Weinstein testified, calling him a "beast".[165][166]

According to a March 13, 2009 filing by Madoff, he and his wife were worth up to $126 million, plus an estimated $700 million for the value of his business interest in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.[167] Other major assets included securities ($45 million), cash ($17 million), half-interest in BLM Air Charter ($12 million), a 2006 Leopard yacht ($7 million), jewelry ($2.6 million), Manhattan apartment ($7 million), Montauk home ($3 million), Palm Beach home ($11 million), Cap d' Antibes, France property ($1 million), and furniture, household goods, and art ($9.9 million).[citation needed]

During a 2011 interview on CBS, Ruth Madoff claimed she and her husband had attempted suicide after his fraud was exposed, both taking "a bunch of pills" in a suicide pact on Christmas Eve 2008.[4][168] In November 2011, former Madoff employee David Kugel pleaded guilty to charges that arose out of the scheme. He admitted having helped Madoff create a phony paper trail, the false account statements that were supplied to clients.[169]

Bernard Madoff suffered a heart attack in December 2013, and reportedly suffers from end-stage renal disease (ESRD).[170] According to CBS New York[171] and other news sources, Madoff claimed in an email to CNBC in January 2014 that he has kidney cancer but this is unconfirmed.

Philanthropy and other activities

Madoff was a prominent philanthropist,[17][150] who served on boards of nonprofit institutions, many of which entrusted his firm with their endowments.[17][150] The collapse and freeze of his personal assets and those of his firm affected businesses, charities, and foundations around the world, including the Chais Family Foundation,[172] the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, the Picower Foundation, and the JEHT Foundation which were forced to close.[17][173] Madoff donated approximately $6 million to lymphoma research after his son Andrew was diagnosed with the disease.[174] He and his wife gave over $230,000 to political causes since 1991, with the bulk going to the Democratic Party.[175]

Madoff served as the chairman of the board of directors of the Sy Syms School of Business at Yeshiva University, and as Treasurer of its Board of Trustees.[150] He resigned his position at Yeshiva University after his arrest.[173] Madoff also served on the Board of New York City Center, a member of New York City's Cultural Institutions Group (CIG).[176] He served on the executive council of the Wall Street division of the UJA Foundation of New York which declined to invest funds with him because of the conflict of interest.[177]

Madoff undertook charity work for the Gift of Life Bone Marrow Foundation and made philanthropic gifts through the Madoff Family Foundation, a $19 million private foundation, which he managed along with his wife.[17] They donated money to hospitals and theaters.[150] The foundation has also contributed to many educational, cultural, and health charities, including those later forced to close because of Madoff's fraud.[178] After Madoff's arrest, the assets of the Madoff Family Foundation were frozen by a federal court.[17]

In the media

  • On May 12, 2009, PBS Frontline aired The Madoff Affair, and subsequently ShopPBS made DVD videos of the show and transcripts available for purchase by the public at large.
  • Imagining Madoff is a 2010 play by Deb Margolin that tells the story of an imagined encounter between Madoff and his victims. The play generated controversy when Elie Wiesel, originally portrayed as a character in the play, threatened legal action, forcing Margolin to substitute a fictional character, "Solomon Galkin". The play was nominated for a 2012 Helen Hayes Award.
  • A documentary, Chasing Madoff, describing Harry Markopolos' efforts to unmask the fraud, was released in August 2011.
  • Woody Allen's 2013 film Blue Jasmine portrays a fictional couple involved in a similar scandal. Allen said that the Madoff scandal was the inspiration for the film.[179]
  • In God We Trust (2013), a documentary about Eleanor Squillari, Madoff's secretary for 25 years and her search for the truth about the fraud (The Halcyon Company).[180]
  • Madoff is played by Robert De Niro in the May 2017 HBO film The Wizard of Lies, based on the best-selling book by Diana B. Henriques. Michelle Pfeiffer plays Ruth Madoff in the film, which was released on May 20, 2017.
  • Madoff, a miniseries by ABC starring Richard Dreyfuss and Blythe Danner as Bernard and Ruth Madoff, aired on February 3 and 4, 2016.[181][182]
  • "Ponzi Super Nova", an episode of the podcast Radiolab released February 10, 2017, in which Madoff is interviewed over prison phone.[183]
  • Chevelle's song "Face to the Floor", as described by the band, is a "pissed off, angry" song about people who got taken by the Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff had for all those years."[184]
  • Randy Susan Meyers's novel, The Widow of Wall Street, published in 2017 by Atria Books is a fictionalized account of the Madoff Ponzi scheme from the wife's point of view.[18

Dont forget to like and subscribe

  1.  

 

Edited by mitsubishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
More education for you
 
 
 
 
Updated Nov 7, 2019

What Is Financial Fraud?

 

Financial fraud dates back to the year 300 B.C. when a Greek merchant name Hegestratos took out a large insurance policy known as bottomry. In layman's terms, the merchant borrowed money and agreed to pay it back with interest when the cargo, in this case, corn, was delivered. If the merchant refused to pay back the loan, the lender could claim the cargo and the boat used for its transportation.

 

Hegestratos planned to sink his empty boat, keep the loan, and sell the corn. The plan failed, and he drowned trying to escape his crew and passengers when they caught him in the act. This is the first recorded incident of fraud, but it's safe to assume that the practice has been around since the dawn of commerce. Instead of starting at the very beginning, we will focus on the growth of stock market fraud in the U.S.

 

Key Takeaways

  • William Duer committed an insider trading scandal in the late1700s when he relied on his information edge to keep ahead of the market.
  • Ulysses S. Grant, the Civil War leader, created a financial panic in 1884 when he could not raise funds to save his son's failing business.
  • In the late 1800s, Daniel Drew used techniques known as a corner, poop and scoop, and pump and dump to defraud stock market investors.
  • After the second world war, stock pools composed of the wealthy manipulated large stocks such as Chrysler, RCA, and Standard Oil until the bubble burst in 1929.

How Fraud Perpetrators Work

There have been many instances of fraud and stock pool scams in the history of the United States, and all of them expose devious schemes based on greed and a desire for power.

 

The first documented fraud occurred in 300 B.C., and it is unlikely that it will ever by stamped out completely because it is driven by greed and the desire for power.

The First Insider Trading Scandal

 

In 1792, only a few years after America officially became independent, the nation experienced its first fraud. At this time, American bonds were similar to developing-world issues or junk bonds today—they fluctuated in value with every bit of news about the fortunes of the colonies that issued them. The trick of investing in such a volatile market was to be a step ahead of the news that would push a bond's value up or down.

 

Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the Treasury, began to restructure American finance by replacing outstanding bonds from various colonies with bonds from the new central government. Consequently, big bond investors sought out people who had access to the Treasury to find out which bond issues Hamilton was going to replace.

 

William Duer, a member of President George Washington's inner circle and assistant secretary of the Treasury, was ideally placed to profit from insider information. Duer was privy to all the Treasury's actions and would tip off his friends and trade in his own portfolio before leaking select information to the public that he knew would drive up prices. Then Duer would simply sell for an easy profit. After years of this type of manipulation, even raiding Treasury funds to make larger bets, Duer left his post but kept his inside contacts. He continued to invest his own money as well as that of other investors in both debt issues and the stocks of banks popping up nationwide.

 

With all the European and domestic money chasing bonds, however, there was a speculative glut as issuers rushed to cash in. Rather than stepping back from the overheating market, Duer was counting on his information edge to keep ahead. He piled his ill-gotten gains and that of his investors into the market. Duer also borrowed heavily to further leverage his bond bets.

 

The correction was unpredictable and sharp, leaving Duer hanging onto worthless investments and huge debts. Hamilton had to rescue the market by buying up bonds and acting as a lender of last resort. William Duer ended up in debtor's prison, where he died in 1799. The speculative bond bubble in 1792 and the large amount of bond trading was, interestingly enough, the catalyst for the Buttonwood Agreement, which was the beginnings of the Wall Street investment community.

 

Fraud Wipes Out a President

 

Ulysses S. Grant, a renowned Civil War hero and former president, only wanted to help his son succeed in business, but he ended up creating a financial panic. Grant's son, Buck, had already failed at several businesses but was determined to succeed on Wall Street. Buck formed a partnership with Ferdinand Ward, an unscrupulous man who was only interested in the legitimacy gained from the Grant name. The two opened up a firm called Grant & Ward. Ward immediately sought capital from investors, falsely claiming that the former president had agreed to help them land lucrative government contracts. Ward then used this cash to speculate on the market. Sadly, Ward was not as gifted at speculating as he was at talking, and he lost heavily.

 

Of the capital Ward squandered, $600,000 was tied to the Marine National Bank, and both the bank and Grant & Ward were on the verge of collapse. Ward convinced Buck to ask his father for more money. Grant Sr., already heavily invested in the firm, was unable to come up with enough funds and was forced to ask for a $150,000 personal loan from William Vanderbilt. Ward essentially took the money and ran, leaving the Grants, Marine National Bank, and the investors holding the bag. Marine National Bank collapsed after a bank run, and its fall helped touch off the panic of 1884.

 

Grant Sr. paid off his debt to Vanderbilt with all his personal effects including his uniforms, swords, medals, and other memorabilia from the war. Ward was eventually caught and imprisoned for six years.

 

The Pioneering Daniel Drew

 

The late 1800s saw men such as Jay Gould, James Fisk, Russell Sage, Edward Henry Harriman, and J.P. Morgan turn the fledgling stock market into their personal playground. However, Daniel Drew was a true pioneer of fraud and stock market manipulation. Drew started out in cattle, bringing the term "watered stock" to our vocabulary—watered stock are shares issued at a much greater value than its underlying assets, usually as part of a scheme to defraud investors. Drew later became a financier when the portfolio of loans he provided to fellow cattlemen gave him the capital to start buying large positions in transportation stocks.

 

Drew lived in a time before disclosure, when only the most basic regulations existed. His technique was known as a corner. He would buy up all of a company's stocks, then spread false news about the company to drive the price down. This would encourage traders to sell the stock short. Unlike today, it was possible to sell short many times the actual stock outstanding.

 

When the time came to cover their short positions, traders would find out that the only person holding stock was Daniel Drew and he expected a high premium. Drew's success with corners led to new operations. Drew often traded wholly owned stocks between himself and other manipulators at higher and higher prices. When this action caught the attention of other traders, the group would dump the stock back on the market.

 

The danger of Drew's combined poop and scoop and pump and dump schemes lay in taking the short position. In 1864, Drew was trapped in a corner of his own by Vanderbilt. Drew was trying to short a company that Vanderbilt was simultaneously trying to acquire. Drew shorted heavily, but Vanderbilt had purchased all the shares. Consequently, Drew had to cover his position at a premium paid directly to Vanderbilt.

 

Drew and Vanderbilt battled again in 1866 over a railroad, but this time Drew was much wiser, or at least much more corrupt. As Vanderbilt tried to buy up one of Drew's railroads, Drew printed more and more illegal shares. Vanderbilt followed his previous strategy and used his war chest to buy up the additional shares. This left Drew running from the law for watering stock and left Vanderbilt cash poor. The two combatants came to an uneasy truce: Drew's fellow manipulators, Fisk and Gould, were angered by the truce and conspired to ruin Drew. He died broke in 1879.

 

The Stock Pools

 

Until the 1920s, most market fraud affected only the few Americans who were investing. When it was confined largely to battles between wealthy manipulators, the government felt no need to step in. After World War I, however, average Americans discovered the stock market. To take advantage of the influx of eager new money, manipulators teamed up to create stock pools. Basically, stock pools carried out Daniel Drew-style manipulation on a larger scale. With more investors involved, the profits from manipulating stocks were enough to convince the management of the companies being targeted to participate. The stock pools became very powerful, manipulating even large cap stocks such as Chrysler, RCA, and Standard Oil.

 

When the bubble burst in 1929, both the general public and the government were staggered by the level of corruption that had contributed to the financial catastrophe. Stock pools took the lion's share of the blame, leading to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ironically, the first head of the SEC was a speculator and former pool insider, Joseph Kennedy Sr.

 

Fast Fact

The first head of the SEC was a speculator and former pool insider, Joseph Kennedy Sr. The stock pools were held largely to blame for the bubble that burst in 1929.

The SEC Era

 

With the creation of the SEC, market rules were formalized and stock fraud was defined. Common manipulation practices were outlawed as was the large trade in insider information. Wall Street would no longer be the Wild West where gunslingers like Drew and Vanderbilt met for showdowns. That isn't to say that the pump and dump or insider trading has disappeared. In the SEC era, investors still get taken in by fraud, but legal protection do now exist giving investors some recourse.

 

 

 

 

dont forget to like and subscribe

Edited by mitsubishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 5:44 PM, Albertson said:

Im sincere and truthful @mitsubishi, i also doubted that my funds could be retrieved but REAL FUNDS RECOVERY, cleared my doubt and im happy again.

Fiction is the least favourite part of the library for enquiring minds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real traders enjoy Watching paint dry

SUBSTITUTE 'PAINT' FOR THE WORD' TRADER/TRADING',,,

...............................................................................................................ETC

 

The History of Paint

Paint through the Centuries

For centuries, paint was essentially lead. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans made a sort of paint by treating lead with wine or vinegar. Later painters mixed up white-lead paste, then added linseed oil, turpentine, a drier, and colored pigments in oil. Such paint had turpentine, a drier and colored pigments in oil. Such paint had great hiding power, was easy to work with, stuck where it was applied, and weathered well. Unfortunately, it also poisoned people, by skin absorption, respiration, or ingestion (the paint chips tasted sweet). Today, paint with more than .06 percent lead by volume is banned in the U.S.

There's also been a shift away from oil as the base for paint. It began during World War II, when linseed oil and the solvents that cut it were scarce. By the mid-'5Os, synthetic replacements were outperforming natural ingredients. Today, practically all paints consist of some form of synthetic resins or polymers. Modern solvent-thinned paints still work like the old oil-base paints, only more effectively; alkyds (a hybrid word designating the combination of alcohols and acids that produces the synthetic resins) have replaced most or all of the natural oils. Alkyd formulations are comparatively low in cost and have excellent color retention, durability, and flexibility.

But the most dramatic shift has been away from solvent-thinned paints in favor of water-thinned ones. Today, latex is the consumer standard, accounting for nearly 80 percent of the paint sold.

Are today's paints better?

Experts disagree. The quality range is much wider, but the best are better and the worst much worse. Paint life span is impossible to predict; there are too many factors

specific to your situation. Be wary of guarantees in judging a brand, see if the paint levels itself
out, showing few brush or roller marks, ripples, or pockmarks. It shouldn't run or sag on the wall during application-the sign of a thin paint (or perhaps you're applying too thick a coat.)

The paint should hide what's underneath it. It should dry hard, to resist denting, scratching,
marring. Hardness correlates with resin content and gloss. Old-timers might swear by linseed oil
base paint, but tests at the USDA's Forest Products Laboratory suggest that today's best choice
for routine outdoor home use is an acrylic latex with a resin content of at least 20 percent.

Paint Gloss: what you get is what you see

Resin makes paint durable, easy to clean, and moisture resistant; the more resin, the higher the gloss. High-gloss paint reflects light, emphasizing defects in walls and ceilings as well as showing
off whatever it coats. (Textured paints and flats break up light; that's why they're used on large
walls and ceilings, particularly if those surfaces are uneven or damaged.

On labels, gloss goes by various names: luster, shine, sheen. Paint can be termed high-gloss, semi gloss, or flat (mat). Semi gloss can be called eggshell, velvet, satin, or pearl, and can range from
nearly flat to very shiny, depending on the manufacturer. There's no industry standard. With enamels, the pigments used should be top quality, with little filler.

Latex glosses may stay tacky much longer than you think. They may feel dry to the touch, but
don't stack things on the newly painted surfpadding:ace too soon, or they may bond to it. Cure can take
two weeks to a month.

Latex Paint: easy to work with, clean up

Once a name for synthetic rubber, latex is now synonymous with water-thinned paint.
The pigment-holding resin particles are held in suspension. Instead of absorbing oxygen to form
a hard coating, the particles actually coalesce into a tight film that is insoluble in water when dry.

Latex is easy to work with. It can be applied to damp surfaces. It doesn't require a wet edge; you can stop mid wall, start later, and never see where you left off. It dries fast, though a full cure can take up to four weeks. Best of all, you can clean up wet paint with soap and water.

You can tell latex quality by the type of resin used:

acrylic is best; vinyl acrylic and other blends next, all vinyl not as good. All are flexible (particularly the acrylics), stretching and shrinking with the wood or whatever they're painted on. On the down side, you can't sand latex especially gloss latex to a desirable texture; it will tear off or melt to a gummy consistency. Latex enamel doesn't level as well as alkyd enamel and won't hold as high a
gloss but a top-quality latex product will hold its gloss better and longer than its alkyd counterpart, especially in areas exposed to weather.

Alkyds:

higher gloss, harder surface Alkyd paint (often called oil-base paint) doesn't dry like latex; oxygen absorbed from the air changes the molecular structure of the solids, so you can sand an alkyd surface- a critical factor if you're using successive coats to provide high glosses. The paint will
also hang on a little harder, because the solvent will carry the paint into the substrate more than water would. On old, poorly prepped surfaces, like chalking walls, choose an alkyd. It will also hold
a higher gloss, and the paint film is more moisture resistant.

On the minus side, alkyds are harder to apply, aren't as sag resistant as latex, are harder to touch
up, and require cleanup with mineral spirits.

Home & Garden Publications

 

Dont forget to like and subscribe

 

http://www.joepullaroinc.com/paint_history.html

Edited by mitsubishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This articlle will help you stay out of trouble. You have to have some intelligence though if you want trade forex.

 

The Top Things to Know About Psychology

By
9-12 minutes

Psychology is a broad field that encompasses the study of human thought, behavior, development, personality, emotion, motivation, and more. Gaining a richer and deeper understanding of psychology can help people achieve insights into their own actions as well as a better understanding of others.

What Is Psychology?

Applications for psychology include mental health treatment, performance enhancement, self-help, ergonomics, and many other areas affecting health and daily life. It is difficult to capture everything that psychology encompasses in just a brief definition, but topics such as development, personality, thoughts, feelings, emotions, motivations, and social behaviors represent just a portion of what psychology seeks to understand, predict, and explain.

There's a lot of confusion out there about psychology. Unfortunately, such misconceptions about psychology abound in part thanks to stereotyped portrayals of psychologists in popular media as well as the diverse career paths of those holding psychology degrees.

According to some popular television programs and movies, psychologists are super-sleuths that can use their understanding of the human mind to solve crimes and predict a criminal's next move. Other traditional depictions present the psychologist as gray and wise, seated in a stately office lined with books, and listening to clients ramble on about their difficult childhoods.

So what is psychology really all about? The fact is that there is a little bit of truth in these stereotypical portrayals, but there is a lot more to psychology than you might initially think. There is tremendous diversity in psychology careers and it is perhaps this enormous range of career paths that contributes to some of the misconceptions about psychology and what psychologists do.

Sure, there are psychologists who help solve crimes and there are plenty of professionals who help people deal with mental health issues. However, there are also psychologists who contribute to creating healthier workplaces. There are psychologists that design and implement public health programs. Other psychologists investigate topics such as airplane safety, computer design, and military life. No matter where psychologists work, their primary goals are to help describe, explain, predict, and influence human behavior.

How Psychology Came to Be What It Is Today

Early psychology evolved out of both philosophy and biology. Discussions of these two subjects date as far back as the early Greek thinkers, including Aristotle and Socrates. The word "psychology" itself is derived from the Greek word psyche, literally meaning "life" or "breath." Derived meanings of the word include "soul" or "self."

The emergence of psychology as a separate and independent field of study truly came about when Wilhelm Wundt established the first experimental psychology lab in Leipzig, Germany in 1879.

Wundt's work was focused on describing the structures that compose the mind. This perspective relied heavily on the analysis of sensations and feelings through the use of introspection, an extremely subjective process. Wundt believed that properly trained individuals would be able to identify accurately the mental processes that accompanied feelings, sensations, and thoughts.

Throughout psychology's history, various schools of thought have formed to explain the human mind and behavior. In some cases, certain schools of thought rose to dominate the field of psychology for a period of time. While these schools of thought are sometimes perceived as competing forces, each perspective has contributed to our understanding of psychology.

The following are some of the major schools of thought in psychology.

  • Wundt and Titchener's structuralism was the earliest school of thought, but others soon began to emerge.
  • The early psychologist and philosopher William James became associated with a school of thought known as functionalism, which focused its attention on the purpose of human consciousness and behavior.
  • Soon, these initial schools of thought gave way to several dominant and influential approaches to psychology. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis centered on how the unconscious mind impacted human behavior.
  • The behavioral school of thought turned away from looking at internal influences on behavior and sought to make psychology the study of observable behaviors.
  • Later, the humanistic approach centered on the importance of personal growth and self-actualization.
  • By the 1960s and 1970s, the cognitive revolution spurred the investigation of internal mental processes such as thinking, decision-making, language development, and memory.

Top 4 Things to Know About Psychology

Here are some important things to know about psychology.

Psychology Is Both an Applied and Theoretical Discipline

Psychology is both an applied and academic field that studies the human mind and behavior. Research in psychology seeks to understand and explain how we think, act, and feel. Research psychologists contribute to our understanding of why people behave as they do as well as different factors that can impact the human mind and behavior.

As most people already realize, a large part of psychology is devoted to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues, but that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to applications for psychology. In addition to mental health, psychology can be applied to a variety of issues that impact health and daily life including well-being, ergonomics, motivation, productivity, and much more.

There Are Many Different Specialty Areas in Psychology

Psychology is a broad and diverse field. Some different subfields and specialty areas have emerged. The following are some of the major areas of research and application within psychology:

  • Abnormal psychology is the study of abnormal behavior and psychopathology. This specialty area is focused on research and treatment of a variety of mental disorders and is linked to psychotherapy and clinical psychology.
  • Biological psychology, also known as biopsychology, studies how biological processes influence the mind and behavior. This area is closely linked to neuroscience and utilizes tools such as MRI and PET scans to look at brain injury or brain abnormalities.
  • Clinical psychology is focused on the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders. It is also considered the single largest area of employment within psychology.
  • Cognitive psychology is the study of human thought processes and cognitions. Cognitive psychologists study topics such as attention, memory, perception, decision-making, problem-solving, and language acquisition.
  • Comparative psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the study of animal behavior. This type of research can lead to a deeper and broader understanding of human psychology.
  • Developmental psychology is an area that looks at human growth and development over the lifespan. Theories often focus on the development of cognitive abilities, morality, social functioning, identity, and other life areas.
  • Forensic psychology is an applied field focused on using psychological research and principles in the legal and criminal justice system.
  • Industrial-organizational psychology is a field that uses psychological research to enhance work performance and select employees.
  • Personality psychology focuses on understanding how personality develops as well as the patterns of thoughts, behaviors, and characteristics that make each individual unique.
  • Social psychology focuses on understanding group behavior as well as how social influences shape individual behavior. Topics studied by social psychologists include attitudes, prejudice, conformity, and aggression.

Psychologists Utilize Scientific Methods

Psychologists use objective scientific methods to understand, explain, and predict human behavior. Psychological studies are highly structured, beginning with a hypothesis that is then empirically tested.

As psychology moved away from its philosophical roots, psychologists began to employ more and more scientific methods to study human behavior. Contemporary researchers use a variety of scientific techniques including experiments, correlational studies, and longitudinal research.

There Are Many Different Applications for Psychology

The most obvious application for psychology is in the field of mental health where psychologists use principles, research, and clinical findings to help clients manage and overcome symptoms of mental distress and psychological illness.

There are also many other ways that psychology used to help people live better, healthier lives. Psychological research can have an impact on public policy, can be used to design public health initiatives, and can guide approaches to education and child development programs.

A Word From Verywell

As you can see, while psychology may be a relatively young science it also has a tremendous amount of both depth and breadth. The assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness are central interests of psychology, but psychology encompasses much more than mental health.

Today, psychologists seek to understand many different aspects of the human mind and behavior, adding new knowledge to our understanding of how people think as well as developing practical applications that have an important impact on everyday human lives.

Thanks for your feedback!

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial policy to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

  • American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.. Washington, DC: Author; 2013.

  • Hothersall D. History of Psychology, 4th ed. New York: Mcgraw-Hill; 2003.

Dont forget to like and subscribe

https://www.verywellmind.com/psychology-4014660

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find out if you are the type of person who gets ripped off

TAKE THE TEST

Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test

 
2-3 minutes

This is an interactive version of the Multiple Choice Rorschach (Harrower-Erickson, 1945).

Background

The Rorschach Test is a projective psychological test developed in 1921 by Hermann Rorschach to measure thought disorder for the purpose of identifying mental illness. It was inspired by the observation that schizophrenia patients often interpret the things they see in unusual ways. In the test, the participant is shown a series of ten ink blot cards and directed to respond to each with what they see in the inkblot. Because completing the Rorschach Test is time intensive and requires and psychologist trained in its usage, there have been many attempts to convert the Rorschach into an objective test for ease of use. The Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test was developed during World War II for the large scale screening of U.S. military personnel. The first work on the MCR reported impressive predictive power, however later work indicates that scores from the MCR have little value and the test does not appear to have been used for much in the last fifty years. This test is provided here just as a historical curiosity.

 

Test Instructions

This test consists of ten images. For each image you will be given some time to memorize it and then on a following page you will have to pick from a list what the best descriptions of that image is. The original instructions call for each image to be projected on a screen for thirty seconds, this test lets you go as fast as you want, however it is recommended that you not go to fast.

 

Participation

This test is provided for educational and entertainment use only. It should not be used as psychological advice of any kind and comes without any guarantee of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose. Also, your responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed.

References:

  • Harrower-Erickson, Molly (1945). "Large scale Rorschach techniques: a manual for the group Rorschach and multiple choice test". Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

 

DONT FORGET TO LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE

 

 

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/HEMCR/

Edited by mitsubishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FROM WIKIPEDIEA

The Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly.[4] The test is named after its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach. In the 1960s, the Rorschach was the most widely used projective test.[5]

Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research,[6] some researchers continue to raise questions. The areas of dispute include the objectivity of testers, inter-rater reliability, the verifiability and general validity of the test, bias of the test's pathology scales towards greater numbers of responses, the limited number of psychological conditions which it accurately diagnoses, the inability to replicate the test's norms, its use in court-ordered evaluations, and the proliferation of the ten inkblot images, potentially invalidating the test for those who have been exposed to them.[7]

History

170px-Hermann_Rorschach_c.1910.JPG

Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game, Gobolinks,[8] from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind.[9] The ink blots were hand drawn by Rorschach.[10]

It has been suggested that Rorschach's use of inkblots may have been inspired by German doctor Justinus Kerner who, in 1857, had published a popular book of poems, each of which was inspired by an accidental inkblot.[11] French psychologist Alfred Binet had also experimented with inkblots as a creativity test,[12] and, after the turn of the century, psychological experiments where inkblots were utilized multiplied, with aims such as studying imagination and consciousness.[13]

After studying 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects, in 1921 Rorschach wrote his book Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the inkblot test (after experimenting with several hundred inkblots, he selected a set of ten for their diagnostic value),[14] but he died the following year. Although he had served as Vice President of the Swiss Psychoanalytic Society, Rorschach had difficulty in publishing the book and it attracted little attention when it first appeared.[15]

In 1927, the newly founded Hans Huber publishing house purchased Rorschach's book Psychodiagnostik from the inventory of Ernst Bircher.[16] Huber has remained the publisher of the test and related book, with Rorschach a registered trademark of Swiss publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG.[17] The work has been described as "a densely written piece couched in dry, scientific terminology".[18]

After Rorschach's death, the original test scoring system was improved by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others.[19]John E. Exner summarized some of these later developments in the comprehensive system, at the same time trying to make the scoring more statistically rigorous. Some systems are based on the psychoanalytic concept of object relations. The Exner system remains very popular in the United States, while in Europe other methods sometimes dominate,[20][21] such as that described in the textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system and rooted more deeply in the original psychoanalysis principles.[citation needed]

Rorschach never intended the inkblots to be used as a general personality test, but developed them as a tool for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. It was not until 1939 that the test was used as a projective test of personality, a use of which Rorschach had always been skeptical.[22] Interviewed in 2012 for a BBC Radio 4 documentary, Rita Signer, curator of the Rorschach Archives in Bern, Switzerland, suggested that far from being random or chance designs, each of the blots selected by Rorschach for his test had been meticulously designed to be as ambiguous and "conflicted" as possible.[23]

Method

The Rorschach test is appropriate for subjects from the age of five to adulthood. The administrator and subject typically sit next to each other at a table, with the administrator slightly behind the subject. Side-by-side seating of the examiner and the subject is used to reduce any effects of inadvertent cues from the examiner to the subject. In other words, side-by-side seating mitigates the possibility that the examiner will accidentally influence the subject's responses.[24] This is to facilitate a "relaxed but controlled atmosphere". There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, approximately 18 by 24 cm in size.[25] Each of the blots has near perfect bilateral symmetry. Five inkblots are of black ink, two are of black and red ink and three are multicolored, on a white background.[26][27][28] After the test subject has seen and responded to all of the inkblots (free association phase), the tester then presents them again one at a time in a set sequence for the subject to study: the subject is asked to note where they see what they originally saw and what makes it look like that (inquiry phase). The subject is usually asked to hold the cards and may rotate them. Whether the cards are rotated, and other related factors such as whether permission to rotate them is asked, may expose personality traits and normally contributes to the assessment.[29] As the subject is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the subject says or does, no matter how trivial. Analysis of responses is recorded by the test administrator using a tabulation and scoring sheet and, if required, a separate location chart.[24]

The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions. The underlying assumption is that an individual will class external stimuli based on person-specific perceptual sets, and including needs, base motives, conflicts, and that this clustering process is representative of the process used in real-life situations.[30] Methods of interpretation differ. Rorschach scoring systems have been described as a system of pegs on which to hang one's knowledge of personality.[31] The most widely used method in the United States is based on the work of Exner.

Administration of the test to a group of subjects, by means of projected images, has also occasionally been performed, but mainly for research rather than diagnostic purposes.[24]

Test administration is not to be confused with test interpretation:

The interpretation of a Rorschach record is a complex process. It requires a wealth of knowledge concerning personality dynamics generally as well as considerable experience with the Rorschach method specifically. Proficiency as a Rorschach administrator can be gained within a few months. However, even those who are able and qualified to become Rorschach interpreters usually remain in a "learning stage" for a number of years.[24]

Features or categories

The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on the contents of the response, i.e., what the individual sees in the inkblot (the content). In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data: for instance, information is provided by the time taken before providing a response for a card can be significant (taking a long time can indicate "shock" on the card).[32] as well as by any comments the subject may make in addition to providing a direct response.[33]

In particular, information about determinants (the aspects of the inkblots that triggered the response, such as form and color) and location (which details of the inkblots triggered the response) is often considered more important than content, although there is contrasting evidence.[34][35] "Popularity" and "originality" of responses[36] can also be considered as basic dimensions in the analysis.[37]

Content

The goal in coding content of the Rorschach is to categorize the objects that the subject describes in response to the inkblot. There are 27 established codes for identifying the name of the descriptive object. The codes are classified and include terms such as "human", "nature", "animal", "abstract", "clothing", "fire", and "x-ray", to name a few. Content described that does not have a code already established should be coded using the code "idiographic contents" with the shorthand code being "Idio." [38] Items are also coded for statistical popularity (or, conversely, originality).[39]

More than any other feature in the test, content response can be controlled consciously by the subject, and may be elicited by very disparate factors, which makes it difficult to use content alone to draw any conclusions about the subject's personality; with certain individuals, content responses may potentially be interpreted directly, and some information can at times be obtained by analyzing thematic trends in the whole set of content responses (which is only feasible when several responses are available), but in general content cannot be analyzed outside of the context of the entire test record.[40]

Location

Identifying the location of the subject's response is another element scored in the Rorschach system. Location refers to how much of the inkblot was used to answer the question. Administrators score the response "W" if the whole inkblot was used to answer the question, "D" if a commonly described part of the blot was used, "Dd" if an uncommonly described or unusual detail was used, or "S" if the white space in the background was used. A score of W is typically associated with the subject's motivation to interact with his or her surrounding environment. D is interpreted as one having efficient or adequate functioning. A high frequency of responses coded Dd indicate some maladjustment within the individual. Responses coded S indicate an oppositional or uncooperative test subject.[25][38]

Determinants

Systems for Rorschach scoring generally include a concept of "determinants": These are the factors that contribute to establishing the similarity between the inkblot and the subject's content response about it. They can also represent certain basic experiential-perceptual attitudes, showing aspects of the way a subject perceives the world. Rorschach's original work used only form, color and movement as determinants. However currently, another major determinant considered is shading,[41] which was inadvertently introduced by poor printing quality of the inkblots. Rorschach initially disregarded shading,[42] since the inkblots originally featured uniform saturation, but later recognized it as a significant factor.[43][44][45]

Form is the most common determinant, and is related to intellectual processes. Color responses often provide direct insight into one's emotional life. Movement and shading have been considered more ambiguously, both in definition and interpretation. Rorschach considered movement only as the experiencing of actual motion, while others have widened the scope of this determinant, taking it to mean that the subject sees something "going on".[46]

More than one determinant can contribute to the formation of the subject's perception. Fusion of two determinants is taken into account, while also assessing which of the two constituted the primary contributor. For example, "form-color" implies a more refined control of impulse than "color-form". It is, indeed, from the relation and balance among determinants that personality can be most readily inferred.[46]

Symmetry of the test items

A striking characteristic of the Rorschach inkblots is their symmetry. Many unquestionably accept this aspect of the nature of the images but Rorschach, as well as other researchers, certainly did not. Rorschach experimented with both asymmetric and symmetric images before finally opting for the latter.[47]

He gives this explanation for the decision:

Asymmetric figures are rejected by many subjects; symmetry supplied part of the necessary artistic composition. It has a disadvantage in that it tends to make answers somewhat stereotyped. On the other hand, symmetry makes conditions the same for right and left handed subjects; furthermore, it facilitates interpretation for certain blocked subjects. Finally, symmetry makes possible the interpretation of whole scenes.[48]

The impact of symmetry in the Rorschach inkblot's has also been investigated further by other researchers.[47]

Exner scoring system

The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS),[49] is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system of analysis. It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability.[6][50] In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called "the Exner system". He later published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of his system.

Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.[51]

The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them,[52] framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative database.[53] The system places a lot of emphasis on a cognitive triad of information processing, related to how the subject processes input data, cognitive mediation, referring to the way information is transformed and identified, and ideation.[54]

In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.[31]

Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.

With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded—typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work.

As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.[55]

Performance assessment system

Rorschach performance assessment system (R-PAS) is a scoring method created by several members of the Rorschach Research Council. They believed that the Exner scoring system was in need of an update, but after Exner's death, the Exner family forbade any changes to be made to the Comprehensive System.[56] Therefore, they established a new system: the R-PAS. It is an attempt at creating a current, empirically based, and internationally focused scoring system that is easier to use than Exner's Comprehensive System.[57] The R-PAS manual is intended to be a comprehensive tool for administering, scoring, and interpreting the Rorschach. The manual consists of two chapters that are basics of scoring and interpretation, aimed for use for novice Rorschach users, followed by numerous chapters containing more detailed and technical information.[58]

In terms of updated scoring, the authors only selected variables that have been empirically supported in the literature. To note, the authors did not create new variables or indices to be coded, but systematically reviewed variables that had been used in past systems.[59] While all of these codes have been used in the past, many have been renamed to be more face valid and readily understood. Scoring of the indices has been updated (e.g. utilizing percentiles and standard scores) to make the Rorschach more in line with other popular personality measures.

In addition to providing coding guidelines to score examinee responses, the R-PAS provides a system to code an examinee's behavior during Rorschach administration. These behavioral codes are included as it is believed that the behaviors exhibited during testing are a reflection of someone's task performance and supplements the actual responses given. This allows generalizations to be made between someone's responses to the cards and their actual behavior.

The R-PAS also recognized that scoring on many of the Rorschach variables differed across countries.[59] Therefore, starting in 1997, Rorschach protocols from researchers around the world were compiled.[60] After compiling protocols for over a decade, a total of 15 adult samples were used to provide a normative basis for the R-PAS. The protocols represent data gathered in the United States, Europe, Israel, Argentina and Brazil.

Cultural differences

Comparing North American Exner normative data with data from European and South American subjects showed marked differences in some features, some of which impact important variables, while others (such as the average number of responses) coincide.[61] For instance, texture response is typically zero in European subjects (if interpreted as a need for closeness, in accordance with the system, a European would seem to express it only when it reaches the level of a craving for closeness),[62] and there are fewer "good form" responses, to the point where schizophrenia may be suspected if data were correlated to the North American norms.[63] Form is also often the only determinant expressed by European subjects;[64] while color is less frequent than in American subjects, color-form responses are comparatively frequent in opposition to form-color responses; since the latter tend to be interpreted as indicators of a defensive attitude in processing affect, this difference could stem from a higher value attributed to spontaneous expression of emotions.[62]

The differences in form quality are attributable to purely cultural aspects: different cultures will exhibit different "common" objects (French subjects often identify a chameleon in card VIII, which is normally classed as an "unusual" response, as opposed to other animals like cats and dogs; in Scandinavia, "Christmas elves" (nisser) is a popular response for card II, and "musical instrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people),[65] and different languages will exhibit semantic differences in naming the same object (the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people).[66] Many of Exner's "popular" responses (those given by at least one third of the North American sample used) seem to be universally popular, as shown by samples in Europe, Japan and South America, while specifically card IX's "human" response, the crab or spider in card X and one of either the butterfly or the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America.[66][67]

Form quality, popular content responses and locations are the only coded variables in the Exner systems that are based on frequency of occurrence, and thus immediately subject to cultural influences; therefore, cultural-dependent interpretation of test data may not necessarily need to extend beyond these components.[68]

The cited language differences mean that it's imperative for the test to be administered in the subject's native language or a very well mastered second language, and, conversely, the examiner should master the language used in the test. Test responses should also not be translated into another language prior to analysis except possibly by a clinician mastering both languages. For example, a bow tie is a frequent response for the center detail of card III, but since the equivalent term in French translates to "butterfly tie", an examiner not appreciating this language nuance may code the response differently from what is expected.[69]

Inkblots

Below are the ten inkblots of the Rorschach test printed in Rorschach's Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates,[70] together with the most frequent responses for either the whole image or the most prominent details according to various authors.

Card Popular responses[71][72][73] Comments[74][75]
Rorschach blot 01.jpg
Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: bat (53%), butterfly (29%)
Dana (France): butterfly (39%)
When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) are not very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses.
Rorschach blot 02.jpg
Beck: two humans
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (34%, gray parts)
Dana (France): animal: dog, elephant, bear (50%, gray)
The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card can induce a variety of sexual responses.
Rorschach blot 03.jpg
Beck: two humans (gray)
Piotrowski: human figures (72%, gray)
Dana (France): human (76%, gray)
Card III is typically perceived to contain two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions).
Rorschach blot 04.jpg
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and authority. Because of this Card IV is often called "The Father Card".[76]
Rorschach blot 05.jpg
Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: butterfly (48%), bat (40%)
Dana (France): butterfly (48%), bat (46%)
Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about.
Rorschach blot 06.jpg
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card", its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.
Rorschach blot 07.jpg
Beck: human heads or faces (top)
Piotrowski: heads of women or children (27%, top)
Dana (France): human head (46%, top)
Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seen in it being described as women or children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which makes this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular.
Rorschach blot 08.jpg
Beck: animal: not cat or dog (pink)
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (94%, pink)
Dana (France): four-legged animal (93%, pink)
People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.
Rorschach blot 09.jpg
Beck: human (orange)
Piotrowski: none
Dana (France): none
Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card.
Rorschach blot 10.jpg
Beck: crab, lobster, spider (blue)
Piotrowski: crab, spider (37%, blue),
rabbit head (31%, light green),
caterpillars, worms, snakes (28%, deep green)
Dana (France): none
Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity are reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.

Usage

United States

The Rorschach test is used almost exclusively by psychologists. Forensic psychologists use the Rorschach 36% of the time.[77] In custody cases, 23% of psychologists use the Rorschach to examine a child.[78] Another survey found that 124 out of 161 (77%) of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach,[79] and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach its use.[80] Another study found that its use by clinical psychologists was only 43%, while it was used less than 24% of the time by school psychologists.[77]

During World War II, United States Army Medical Corps chief psychiatrist Dr. Douglas Kelley and psychologist Gustave Gilbert administered the Rorschach test to the 22 defendants in the Nazi leadership group prior to the first Nuremberg trials.[81]

United Kingdom

Many psychologists in the United Kingdom do not trust its efficacy and it is rarely used.[82] Although skeptical about its scientific validity, some psychologists use it in therapy and coaching "as a way of encouraging self-reflection and starting a conversation about the person's internal world."[22] It is still used, however, by some mental health organisations such as the Tavistock Clinic.[83] In a survey done in the year 2000, 20% of psychologists in correctional facilities used the Rorschach while 80% used the MMPI.[84]

Japan

Shortly after publication of Rorschach's book, a copy found its way to Japan where it was discovered by one of the country's leading psychiatrists in a second-hand book store. He was so impressed that he started a craze for the test that has never diminished.[85] The Japanese Rorschach Society is by far the largest in the world and the test is "routinely put to a wide range of purposes".[23] In 2012 the test was described, by presenter Jo Fidgen, for BBC Radio 4's programme Dr Inkblot, as "more popular than ever" in Japan.[83]

Controversy

Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience,[7][86] as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s were akin to cold reading.[87] In the 1959 edition of Mental Measurement Yearbook, Lee Cronbach (former President of the Psychometric Society and American Psychological Association)[88] is quoted in a review: "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." In addition, major reviewer Raymond J. McCall writes (p. 154): "Though tens of thousands of Rorschach tests have been administered by hundreds of trained professionals since that time (of a previous review), and while many relationships to personality dynamics and behavior have been hypothesized, the vast majority of these relationships have never been validated empirically, despite the appearance of more than 2,000 publications about the test."[89] A moratorium on its use was called for in 1999.[90]

A 2003 report by Wood and colleagues had more mixed views: "More than 50 years of research have confirmed Lee J. Cronbach's (1970) final verdict: that some Rorschach scores, though falling woefully short of the claims made by proponents, nevertheless possess 'validity greater than chance' (p. 636). [...] Its value as a measure of thought disorder in schizophrenia research is well accepted. It is also used regularly in research on dependency, and, less often, in studies on hostility and anxiety. Furthermore, substantial evidence justifies the use of the Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder."[91]

Test materials

The basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes, but it is not clear how this occurs. Also, recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects of the blots.[6]Reber (1985) describes the blots as merely ".. the vehicle for the interaction .." between client and therapist, concluding: ".. the usefulness of the Rorschach will depend upon the sensitivity, empathy and insightfulness of the tester totally independently of the Rorschach itself. An intense dialogue about the wallpaper or the rug would do as well provided that both parties believe."[92]

Illusory and invisible correlations

In the 1960s, research by psychologists Loren and Jean Chapman showed that at least some of the apparent validity of the Rorschach was due to an illusion.[93][94] At that time, the five signs most often interpreted as diagnostic of homosexuality were 1) buttocks and anuses; 2) feminine clothing; 3) male or female sex organs; 4) human figures without male or female features; and 5) human figures with both male and female features.[94][95] The Chapmans surveyed 32 experienced testers about their use of the Rorschach to diagnose homosexuality. At this time homosexuality was regarded as a psychopathology, and the Rorschach was the most popular projective test.[5] The testers reported that homosexual men had shown the five signs more frequently than heterosexual men.[94][96] Despite these beliefs, analysis of the results showed that heterosexual men were just as likely to report these signs, which were therefore totally ineffective for determining homosexuality.[93][95][96] The five signs did, however, match the guesses students made about which imagery would be associated with homosexuality.[95]

The Chapmans investigated the source of the testers' false confidence. In one experiment, students read through a stack of cards, each with a Rorschach blot, a sign and a pair of "conditions" (which might include homosexuality). The information on the cards was fictional, although subjects were told it came from case studies of real patients.[93] The students reported that the five invalid signs were associated with homosexuality, even though the cards had been constructed so there was no association at all.[95][96] The Chapmans repeated this experiment with another set of cards, in which the association was negative; the five signs were never reported by homosexuals. The students still reported seeing a strong positive correlation.[5][96] These experiments showed that the testers' prejudices could result in them "seeing" non-existent relationships in the data. The Chapmans called this phenomenon "illusory correlation" and it has since been demonstrated in many other contexts.[93][94]

A related phenomenon called "invisible correlation" applies when people fail to see a strong association between two events because it does not match their expectations.[94] This was also found in clinicians' interpretations of the Rorschach. Homosexual men are more likely to see a monster on Card IV or a part-animal, part-human figure in Card V.[5][95] Almost all of the experienced clinicians in the Chapmans' survey missed these valid signs.[5][93] The Chapmans ran an experiment with fake Rorschach responses in which these valid signs were always associated with homosexuality. The subjects missed these perfect associations and instead reported that invalid signs, such as buttocks or feminine clothing, were better indicators.[93]

In 1992, the psychologist Stuart Sutherland argued that these artificial experiments are easier than the real-world use of the Rorschach, and hence they probably underestimated the errors that testers were susceptible to. He described the continuing popularity of the Rorschach after the Chapmans' research as a "glaring example of irrationality among psychologists".[93]

Tester projection

Some critics argue that the testing psychologist must also project onto the patterns. A possible example sometimes attributed to the psychologist's subjective judgement is that responses are coded (among many other things), for "Form Quality": in essence, whether the subject's response fits with how the blot actually looks. Superficially this might be considered a subjective judgment, depending on how the examiner has internalized the categories involved. But with the Exner system of scoring, much of the subjectivity is eliminated or reduced by use of frequency tables that indicate how often a particular response is given by the population in general.[6] Another example is that the response "bra" was considered a "sex" response by male psychologists, but a "clothing" response by females.[97] In Exner's system, however, such a response is always coded as "clothing" unless there is a clear sexual reference in the response.[6]

Third parties could be used to avoid this problem, but the Rorschach's inter-rater reliability has been questioned. That is, in some studies the scores obtained by two independent scorers do not match with great consistency.[98] This conclusion was challenged in studies using large samples reported in 2002.[99]

Validity

When interpreted as a projective test, results are poorly verifiable. The Exner system of scoring (also known as the "Comprehensive System") is meant to address this, and has all but displaced many earlier (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factor (shading, color, outline, etc.) of the inkblot leads to each of the tested person's comments. Disagreements about test validity remain: while the Exner proposed a rigorous scoring system, latitude remained in the actual interpretation, and the clinician's write-up of the test record is still partly subjective.[100] Reber (1985) comments ".. there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that the test has even a shred of validity."[92]

Nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating the utility of the measure for a few scores. Several scores correlate well with general intelligence. One such scale is R, the total number of responses; this reveals the questionable side-effect that more intelligent people tend to be elevated on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high R: if a subject gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem "pathological". Also correlated with intelligence are the scales for Organizational Activity, Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Figure responses.[101] The same source reports that validity has also been shown for detecting such conditions as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; thought disorders; and personality disorders (including borderline personality disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale relates to bipolar disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System doesn't appear to bear a consistent relationship to psychological disorders or symptoms, personality characteristics, potential for violence, or such health problems as cancer".[102] (Cancer is mentioned because a small minority of Rorschach enthusiasts have claimed the test can predict cancer.)[103]

Reliability

It is also thought that the test's reliability can depend substantially on details of the testing procedure, such as where the tester and subject are seated, any introductory words, verbal and nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al.[97] cites many court cases where these had not been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming leaving them very subject to the author's style and the publisher to the quality of the instructions (such as was noted with one of Bohm's textbooks in the 1950s[104]) as well as clinic workers (which would include examiners) being encouraged to cut corners.[105][106]

United States courts have challenged the Rorschach as well. Jones v Apfel (1997) stated (quoting from Attorney's Textbook of Medicine) that Rorschach "results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial".[107] In State ex rel H.H. (1999) where under cross-examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test"[107] and US v Battle (2001) ruled that the Rorschach "does not have an objective scoring system."[107]

Population norms

Another controversial aspect of the test is its statistical norms. Exner's system was thought to possess normative scores for various populations. But, beginning in the mid-1990s others began to try to replicate or update these norms and failed. In particular, discrepancies seemed to focus on indices measuring narcissism, disordered thinking, and discomfort in close relationships.[108] Lilienfeld and colleagues, who are critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that the Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals".[108] Although Rorschach proponents, such as Hibbard,[109] suggest that high rates of pathology detected by the Rorschach accurately reflect increasing psychopathology in society, the Rorschach also identifies half of all test-takers as possessing "distorted thinking",[110] a false positive rate unexplained by current research.

The accusation of "over-pathologising" has also been considered by Meyer et al. (2007). They presented an international collaborative study of 4704 Rorschach protocols, obtained in 21 different samples, across 17 different countries, with only 2% showing significant elevations on the index of perceptual and thinking disorder, 12% elevated on indices of depression and hyper-vigilance and 13% elevated on persistent stress overload—all in line with expected frequencies among non-patient populations.[111]

Applications

The test is also controversial because of its common use in court-ordered evaluations.[citation needed] This controversy stems, in part, from the limitations of the Rorschach, with no additional data, in making official diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).[112]Irving B. Weiner (co-developer with John Exner of the Comprehensive system) has stated that the Rorschach "is a measure of personality functioning, and it provides information concerning aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people the kind of people they are. Sometimes such information about personality characteristics is helpful in arriving at a differential diagnosis, if the alternative diagnoses being considered have been well conceptualized with respect to specific or defining personality characteristics".[113] In the vast majority of cases, anyway, the Rorschach test wasn't singled out but used as one of several in a battery of tests,[114] and despite the criticism of usage of the Rorschach in the courts, out of 8,000 cases in which forensic psychologists used Rorschach-based testimony, the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases.[80] One study has found that use of the test in courts has increased by three times in the decade between 1996 and 2005, compared to the previous fifty years.[114] Others however have found that its usage by forensic psychologists has decreased.[115]

Exner and others have claimed that the Rorschach test is capable of detecting suicidality.[116][117][118]

Protection of test items and ethics

Psychologists object to the publication of psychological test material out of concerns that a patient's test responses will be influenced ("primed") by previous exposure. The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that, "Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness" and calls for "keeping psychological tests out of the public domain."[119] The same statement quotes their president as saying, "The CPA's concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content".

From a legal standpoint, the Rorschach test images have been in the public domain for many years in most countries, particularly those with a copyright term of up to 70 years post mortem auctoris. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), according to Swiss copyright law.[120][121] They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law[122][123] where all works published before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain.[124] This means that the Rorschach images may be used by anyone for any purpose. William Poundstone was, perhaps, first to make them public in his 1983 book Big Secrets, where he also described the method of administering the test.[citation needed]

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a code of ethics that supports "freedom of inquiry and expression" and helping "the public in developing informed judgments".[125] It claims that its goals include "the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", and it requires that psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials". The APA has also raised concerns that the dissemination of test materials might impose "very concrete harm to the general public". It has not taken a position on publication of the Rorschach plates but noted "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose".[126] A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns about psychological tests (without mentioning any test by name) and considers the "release of [test] materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse if it is against the wishes of the test publisher.[127] In his 1998 book Ethics in Psychology, Gerald Koocher notes that some believe "reprinting copies of the Rorschach plates ... and listing common responses represents a serious unethical act" for psychologists and is indicative of "questionable professional judgment".[128] Other professional associations, such as the Italian Association of Strategic Psychotherapy, recommend that even information about the purpose of the test or any detail of its administration should be kept from the public, even though "cheating" the test is held to be practically impossible.[129]

On September 9, 2008, Hogrefe attempted to claim copyright over the Rorschach ink blots during filings of a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against the Brazilian psychologist Ney Limonge. These complaints were denied.[130] Further complaints were sent to two other websites that contained information similar to the Rorschach test in May 2009 by legal firm Schluep and Degen of Switzerland.[131][132]

Psychologists have sometimes refused to disclose tests and test data to courts when asked to do so by the parties citing ethical reasons; it is argued that such refusals may hinder full understanding of the process by the attorneys, and impede cross-examination of the experts. APA ethical standard 1.23(b) states that the psychologist has a responsibility to document processes in detail and of adequate quality to allow reasonable scrutiny by the court.[133]

Controversy ensued in the psychological community in 2009 when the original Rorschach plates and research results on interpretations were published in the "Rorschach test" article on Wikipedia.[134] Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, a German company that sells editions of the plates, called the publication "unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia" and said it was investigating the possibility of legal action.[134] Due to this controversy an edit filter was temporarily established on Wikipedia to prevent the removal of the plates.[135]

James Heilman, an emergency room physician involved in the debate, compared it to the publication of the eye test chart: though people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart before an eye test, its general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight has not diminished.[134] For those opposed to exposure, publication of the inkblots is described as a "particularly painful development", given the tens of thousands of research papers which have, over many years, "tried to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions."[134] Controversy over Wikipedia's publication of the inkblots has resulted in the blots being published in other locations, such as The Guardian[136] and The Globe and Mail.[137] Later that year[when?] two psychologists filed a complaint against Heilman with the Saskatchewan medical licensing board, arguing that his uploading of the images constituted unprofessional behavior.[138] In 2012 two articles were published showing consequences of the publication of the images in Wikipedia. The first one studied negative attitudes towards the test generated during the Wikipedia-Rorschach debate,[139] while the second suggested that reading the Wikipedia article could help to fake "good" results in the test.[140]

Publication of the Rorschach images is also welcomed by critics who consider the test to be pseudoscience. Benjamin Radford, editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, stated that the Rorschach "has remained in use more out of tradition than good evidence" and was hopeful that publication of the test might finally hasten its demise.[141]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Santo Di Nuovo; Maurizio Cuffaro (2004). Il Rorschach in pratica : strumenti per la psicologia clinica e l'ambito giuridico. Milano: F. Angeli. p. 147. ISBN 978-88-464-5475-1.
  2. ^ Fátima Miralles Sangro (1996). Rorschach : tablas de localización y calidad formal en una muestra española de 470 sujetos. Madrid: Universidad Pontifícia Comillas. p. 71. ISBN 978-84-87840-92-0.
  3. ^ "Rorschach test". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
  4. ^ Gacano & Meloy 1994[page needed]
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Chapman, Loren J.; Chapman, Jean (1982). "Test results are what you think they are". In Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky, Amos (eds.). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–248. ISBN 978-0-521-28414-1.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Exner, John E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-38672-8.[page needed]
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M- Wood and Howard N. Garb: What's wrong with this picture? Scientific American, May 2001
  8. ^ Book News. 1897. p. 143. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  9. ^ Groth-Marnat 2003, p. 408
  10. ^ Tibon-Czopp, Shira; Weiner, Irving B. (2016). Rorschach Assessment of Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer. p. 3. ISBN 9781493931514.
  11. ^ Pichot P (1984). "Centenary of the birth of Hermann Rorschach. (S. Rosenzweig & E. Schriber, Trans.)". Journal of Personality Assessment. 48 (6): 591–596. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4806_3. PMID 6394738.
  12. ^ "Test Developer Profiles". mhhe.com. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
  13. ^ Gerald Goldstein; Michel Hersen, eds. (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. p. 437. ISBN 978-0-08-043645-6.
  14. ^ Kumar N, Verma, Romesh. Textbook Of Statistics, Psychology & Education. p. 225. ISBN 978-81-261-1411-5.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ "April 2, 1922: Rorschach Dies, Leaving a Blot on". wired.com.
  16. ^ "About the Test". The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
  17. ^ "® Rorschach Test". Hogrefe.com. Retrieved 2014-01-18.
  18. ^ Acklin M. W.; Oliveira-Berry J. (1996). "Return to the source: Rorschach's Psychodiagnostics". Journal of Personality Assessment. 67 (2): 427–433. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6702_17. PMID 16367686.
  19. ^ Exner Jr., John E.: "Obituary: Samuel J. Beck (1896–1980)", "American Psychologist", 36(9)
  20. ^ a cura di Franco Del Corno, Margherita Lang (1989). Psicologia clinica. Milano: F. Angeli. p. 302. ISBN 978-88-204-9876-4. Nonostante il Sistema Comprensivo di J.E. Exner rappresenti ai nostri giorni il Metodo Rorschach più diffuso a livello mondiale, in Italia è ancora non molto utilizzato. Although J. E. Exner's Comprehensive Systems nowadays represents the most widely adopted method worldwide, it is not yet very widespread in Italy.
  21. ^ Dana 2000, p. 329 "Although it has enormously expanded throughout Europe [...] use of the RCS remains, as it where, somewhat confidential in many countries."
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b "What's behind the Rorschach inkblot test?". BBC News Magazine. 24 July 2012.
  23. ^ Jump up to: a b "BBC Radio 4 - Dr Inkblot". BBC. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Klopfer & Davidson 1962
  25. ^ Jump up to: a b Goldman 2000, p. 158
  26. ^ Harry Bakwin; Ruth Mae Morris Bakwin (1960). Clinical management of behavior disorders in children. Saunders. p. 249. The Rorschach Test consists of 10 inkblots, printed on a white background and mounted on cardboard 7 by 9 inches
  27. ^ Alfred M. Freedman; Harold I. Kaplan; Benjamin J. Sadock (1972). Modern synopsis of Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. p. 168. The Rorschach test [...] consists of 10 symmetrical inkblots printed on a white background
  28. ^ Gardner Murphy; Lois Barclay Murphy; Theodore Mead Newcomb (1931). Experimental social psychology: an interpretation of research upon the socialization of the individual. Harper & Brothers. It consists of ten irregular but symmetrical ink blots, five of them in blacks and grays, and five partially in colors, on a white background.
  29. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 214
  30. ^ Groth-Marnat 2003, p. 407
  31. ^ Jump up to: a b Mons, W. (1950). Principles and Practice Of the Rorschach Personality Test (2nd ed.). Faber. pp. 30–31.
  32. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 232
  33. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 224.
  34. ^ Eysenck, Michael W. (2004). Psychology : an international perspective. Hove: Psychology Press. p. 458. ISBN 978-1-84169-360-6.
  35. ^ Eysenck, Michael W. (1998). Individual differences : normal and abnormal. Hove: Psychology Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-86377-257-3.
  36. ^ edited by Cecil R. Reynolds and Randy W. Kamphaus (2003). Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children personality, behavior, and context. New York: Guilford Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-57230-884-8.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  37. ^ Groth-Marnat 2003, pp. 423
  38. ^ Jump up to: a b Exner, J. E. (1986). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 1: Basic Foundations (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  39. ^ Pertti J. Pelto; Gretel H. Pelto (1996). Anthropological research : the structure of inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-521-29228-3.
  40. ^ Schachtel 2001, pp. 258–261
  41. ^ Schachtel 2001, pp. 76–78
  42. ^ Schachtel 2001, pp. 243
  43. ^ Schachtel 2001, p. 243
  44. ^ Edward Aronow; Marvin Reznikoff (1976). Rorschach content interpretation. Grune and Stratton. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8089-0961-3. The printer also reduced the blot cards in size and altered their colors. In addition an imperfect printing process resulted in varieties of shading that were not originally intended by Rorschach (Ellenberger, 1954).
  45. ^ Leichtman, Martin (1996). The Rorschach: a developmental perspective. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-88163-138-8. "[...] the printing of the cards was more than unsatisfactory. The cards were reduced in size, the colors changed and the original uniformity of the black areas was reproduced in a variety of shades, delineating all kinds of vague forms. The printer probably did not expect congratulations for his slovenly work, but as soon as Rorschach had seen the proofs he was seized by a renewed enthusiasm, and understood at once the new possibilities the prints offered." (Ellenberger 1954, p. 206) Far from being outraged that the integrity of his experiment was violated, Rorschach appreciated immediately that shading enriched the test by further increasing the creative possibilities the cards afforded.
  46. ^ Jump up to: a b J. Mcv Hunt (2007). Personality And The Behavior Disorders – Vol I. Braithwaite Press. pp. 230–231. ISBN 978-1-4067-4440-8.
  47. ^ Jump up to: a b Justine Sergent & Yitzchak M. Binik, "On the Use of Symmetry in the Rorschach Test". Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 43, Issue 4, 1979. pp. 355–359.[1]
  48. ^ Rorschach. H., Psychodiagnostics; a diagnostic test based on perception : including Rorschach's paper, The application of the form interpretation test (published posthumously by Dr. Emil Oberholzer). Grune & Stratton inc, New York (1942). p15.
  49. ^ Giuseppe Costantino; Richard H. Dana; Robert G. Malgady. (2007). TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story) assessment in multicultural societies. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 213. ISBN 978-0-8058-4451-1.
  50. ^ Weiner 2003[page needed]
  51. ^ Groth-Marnat 2003, pp. 406–407
  52. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 61
  53. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 59
  54. ^ Ravaioli, Laura (2008). "Il test di Rorschach secondo il sistema comprensivo di Exner". Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  55. ^ Dana 2000, pp. 337,338
  56. ^ Anthony D. Sciara; Barry Ritzler. "Rorschach Comprehensive System: Current issues". Rorschach Training Programs, INC. (RTP). Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  57. ^ http://www.r-pas.org/About.aspx.
  58. ^ http://www.r-pas.org/Docs/Manual_TOC.pdf.
  59. ^ Jump up to: a b Meyer, G. J., & Eblin, J. J. (2012) An overview of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). Psychological Inj. and Law, 5, 107-121.
  60. ^ Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Meyer, G. J. (2007). Introduction to the JPA special supplement on international reference samples for the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, S2-S6.
  61. ^ Dana 2000, p. 332
  62. ^ Jump up to: a b Dana 2000, p. 335
  63. ^ Dana 2000, p. 333
  64. ^ Dana 2000, p. 334
  65. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 53
  66. ^ Jump up to: a b Dana 2000, p. 338,339,354
  67. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 52
  68. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 54
  69. ^ Weiner 2003, p. 55
  70. ^ Rorschach, Hermann (1927). Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates. Hogrefe. ISBN 978-3-456-82605-9.
  71. ^ Alvin G. Burstein; Sandra Loucks (1989). Rorschach's test: scoring and interpretation. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-89116-780-8.
  72. ^ Piotrowski, Z. A. (1987). Perceptanalysis: The Rorschach Method Fundamentally Reworked, Expanded and Systematized. Psychology Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-8058-0102-6.
  73. ^ Dana 2000, p. 338
  74. ^ Weiner & Greene 2007, pp. 390–395
  75. ^ Weiner 2003, pp. 102–109
  76. ^ Hayden, Brian C. (1981). "Rorschach Cards IV and VII Revisited". Journal of Personality Assessment. 45 (3): 226–229. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4503_1. PMID 7252752.
  77. ^ Jump up to: a b Hughes; Gacono, Carl B.; Owen, Patrick F. (2007). "Current status of Rorschach assessment: implications for the school psychologist". Psychology in the Schools. 44 (3): 281. doi:10.1002/pits.20223.
  78. ^ Butcher, James Neal (2009). Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment (Oxford Library of Psychology). Oxford University Press, USA. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-19-536687-7.
  79. ^ Camara; Nathan, Julie S.; Puente, Anthony E.; et al. (2000). "Psychological Test Usage: Implications in Professional Psychology". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 31 (2): 131–154. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.31.2.141.
  80. ^ Jump up to: a b Weiner & Greene 2007, p. 402
  81. ^ Main, Douglas (September 7, 2015). "Nazi Criminals Were Given Rorschach Tests at Nuremberg". Newsweek. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
  82. ^ "Hermann Rorschach Google doodle asks users to interpret inkblot test". theguardian.com. 8 November 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
  83. ^ Jump up to: a b "Dr Inkblot". On Radio 4 Now. 25 July 2012.
  84. ^ Raynor, Peter; McIvor, Gill (2008). Developments in Social Work Offenders (Research Highlights in Social Work). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-84310-538-1.
  85. ^ Sorai, Kenzo; Ohnuki, Keiichi (1 January 2008). "The Development of the Rorschach in Japan". Rorschachiana. 29 (1): 38–63. doi:10.1027/1192-5604.29.1.38. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  86. ^ Pieter J.D., Drenth (2003). ""Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" Annual Report 2003" (PDF). ALLEA (All European Academies). PDF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-16.
  87. ^ James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld, & Howard N. Garb:The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading. Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Jul 2003.
  88. ^ Alexander, Meredith (October 5, 2001). "Lee Cronbach, dead at 85". Stanford Report. Stanford University School of Education.
  89. ^ Robyn M, Dawes (1991). "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test". Institute for Psychological Therapies Journal. 3 (4).
  90. ^ Garb HN (December 1999). "Call for a moratorium on the use of the Rorschach Inkblot Test in clinical and forensic settings". Assessment. 6 (4): 313–8. doi:10.1177/107319119900600402. PMID 10539978.
  91. ^ Wood, James M.; Nezworski, M. Teresa; Garb, Howard N. (2003). "What's Right with the Rorschach?". The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 2 (2).
  92. ^ Jump up to: a b Arthur S. Reber (1985). Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin Books. p. 653. ISBN 978-0-14-051079-9.
  93. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Sutherland 2007, pp. 117–120
  94. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Plous 1993, pp. 164–166
  95. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Hardman 2009, p. 57
  96. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Fine 2006, pp. 66–70
  97. ^ Jump up to: a b Wood 2003[page needed]
  98. ^ Wood 2003, pp. 227–234
  99. ^ Meyer G. J.; Hilsenroth M. J.; Baxter D.; Exner J. E.; Fowler J. C.; Piers C. C.; Resnick J. (2002). "An examination of interrater reliability for scoring the Rorschach comprehensive system in eight data sets". Journal of Personality Assessment. 78 (2): 219–274. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.559.6551. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_03. PMID 12067192.
  100. ^ Goldman 2000, p. 159
  101. ^ Wood 2003, Table 9.4
  102. ^ Wood 2003, pp. 249–250
  103. ^ Graves P.L.; Thomas C.B.; Mead L.A. (1991). "The Rorschach Interaction Scale as a potential predictor of cancer" (PDF). Psychosomatic Medicine. 48 (8): 549–563. doi:10.1097/00006842-198611000-00002. PMID 3809367.
  104. ^ (1958) Journal of personality assessment Volumes 22–23; Page 462
  105. ^ Lowrey, Lawson Gentry (1946) American journal of orthopsychiatry, Volume 16 American Orthopsychiatric Association pg 732
  106. ^ Buros, Oscar Krisen (1975) Personality tests and reviews: including an index to The mental measurements yearbooks, Volume 1. Gryphon Press, pg Page 411
  107. ^ Jump up to: a b c Gacono, Carl B., F. Barton Evans (2007) "The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment" pg 83
  108. ^ Jump up to: a b Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N. "The scientific status of projective techniques, Psychological Science in the Public Interest v. 1, pp. 27–66, 2000". CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  109. ^ Hibbard, S. "A Critique of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2000) The Scientific status of Projective Techniques, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 80, pp. 260–271, 2003".
  110. ^ Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial. July 31, 2009
  111. ^ Meyer, G.J., Erdberg, P., & Shaffer, T.W. "Toward international normative reference data for the Comprehensive System, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 89(S1), S201–S206, 2007". CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  112. ^ American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC.
  113. ^ Weiner, Irving B. (1999). What the Rorschach Can do for you: Incremental validity in clinical applications. Assessment 6. pp. 327–338.
  114. ^ Jump up to: a b Carl B. Gacono; F. Barton Evans; Lynne A. Gacono; Nancy Kaser-Boyd., eds. (2007). The handbook of forensic Rorschach psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-8058-5823-5.
  115. ^ Garb HN, Wood JM, Lilienfeld SO, Nezworski MT (January 2005). "Roots of the Rorschach controversy". Clin Psychol Rev. 25 (1): 97–118. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002. PMID 15596082.
  116. ^ Exner J.E.; Wylie J. (1977). "Some Rorschach data concerning suicide". Journal of Personality Assessment. 41 (4): 339–348. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4104_1. PMID 886425.
  117. ^ Viglione D (1999). "A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach". Psychological Assessment. 11 (3): 251–265. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.251.
  118. ^ Fowler, J. C., Piers, C., Hilsenroth, M. J., Holdwick, D. J., & Padawer, J. R. The Rorschach suicide constellation: Assessing various degrees of lethality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76 (2), 333–351.
  119. ^ "Canadian Psychological Association Position on Publication and Dissemination of Psychological Tests" (PDF). Canadian Psychological Association. August 4, 2009. Retrieved 2010-07-08. Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness.
  120. ^ "Copyright Durations Worldwide – EU Copyright". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
  121. ^ "Copyrights – Terms of Protection". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
  122. ^ Carol Forsloff (30 July 2009). "Rorschach Personality Test: Did Wikipedia Leak a 'Cheat Sheet'". Digital Journal.
  123. ^ Noam Cohen (28 July 2009). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". New York Times. Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.
  124. ^ "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States". Cornell Copyright Information Center. 1 January 2009.
  125. ^ "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct". American Psychological Association. 2003-06-01. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  126. ^ "Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data". American Psychological Association. February 1996. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
  127. ^ "Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers". The British Psychological Society. 2007-10-15. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  128. ^ Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spielgel, Patricia (1998). Ethics in psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 159–160. ISBN 978-0-19-509201-1.
  129. ^ "Rorschach Test". Associazione Italiana di Psicoterapia Strategica Integrata. 21 July 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-29. Infatti il Rorschach porta con sé (dovrebbe portare) il riserbo assoluto su come si somministra, sul suo significato generale e su quello delle tavole in particolare. [...] Tuttavia, al contrario di quanto si possa credere, "mentire" al Rorschach è praticamente impossibile [...]
  130. ^ "WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2008-1206". Retrieved Oct 15, 2009.
  131. ^ "extra.listverse.com" (PDF).
  132. ^ "Online Rorschach Test: Legal Threats".
  133. ^ Paul R. Lees-Haley; John C. Courtney (2000). "Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence? – A Need for Reform". Claims Magazine.
  134. ^ Jump up to: a b c d A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?, The New York Times, July 28, 2009
  135. ^ Heilman JM, Kemmann E, Bonert M, et al. (2011). "Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (1): e14. doi:10.2196/jmir.1589. PMC 3221335. PMID 21282098.
  136. ^ Ian Simple (29 July 2009). "Testing times for Wikipedia after doctor posts secrets of the Rorschach inkblots". The Guardian.
  137. ^ Patrick White (31 July 2009). "Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail.(registration required)
  138. ^ Noam Cohen (August 23, 2009). "Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test". New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
  139. ^ Schultz, Douglas S.; Loving, James L. (1 January 2012). "Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Availability of Rorschach Information Online and Internet Users' Reactions to Online Media Coverage of the Rorschach–Wikipedia Debate". Journal of Personality Assessment. 94 (1): 73–81. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.627963. PMID 22176268.
  140. ^ Schultz, DS; Brabender, VM (Oct 2, 2012). "More Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables". Journal of Personality Assessment. 95 (2): 149–58. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725438. PMID 23030722.
  141. ^ Radford, Benjamin (2009-07-31). "Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial". Live Science. Imaginova Corp. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

References

External links

 

DONT FORGET..............................TO LIKE

 

AND

 

 

 

SUBSCRIBE🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is written by a student- you are all students here, so I think its appropriate

Dont forget to like and subscribe

reflect the views of UK Essays.

The Rorschach Ink Blot

In 1921, Herman Rorschach published Psychodiagnostik. The Rorschach test was included as a monograph. Herman Rorschach received his inspiration for the ink blot test by J. Kerner. Kerner believed that responses to interpretation of ink blots could reveal important individual meanings. Rorschach applied this theory to diagnose psychological disorders. David Levy brought the Rorschach test to the United States. The test originally was received with skepticism and criticism from the European and American psychological community. The community found it useless due to the lack of scientific evidence.

The cost, according to Psychological Assessment Resources, is around a hundred dollars. There are also many supplemental workbooks to aid in the administration and scoring. These workbooks run from around sixty to a hundred dollars.

Herman Rorschach designed the ink blot test to measure individual’s responses and identify psychological disorders. The Rorschach has 10 separate cards. Five of the cards are black and gray. Two of the cards are black, gray, and red. Three of the cards are a mixture of pastel colors. Rorschach can be used for many ages. Only Professionals can administer the test due to the intense administration and scoring. Rorschach is most often used in clinical settings.

The administration for the Rorschach is an extensive process. The examiner must make sure that the test is administered as ambiguously as possible. Subjects may ask many questions to get a basic structure. The examiner must only give away basic instructions, such as “what might this be?” Examiners must not respond to the subjects responses verbally or nonverbally. This might led to the subjects attempting to please the examiner’s expectations. Also Exner recommended that the examiner sat next to the subject instead of the traditional position of face-to-face. This was to reduce the non-verbal cues from the examiner.

There are two parts of the test. The first part is the free-association phase. The examiner may ask the subject what he/she might see in the first card. Each card is administered individually. The subject then tells what he/she sees on the inkblot card. If his/her answer is insufficient the examiner makes a remark for the subject to attempt to look for more on the card. It is important that the examiner write down everything the subject says and every noise the subject makes. Also the examiner must record the subject’s reaction time. The position that the card is in while the subject is examining it must be recording precisely. For example, the examiner would have to report that for card 3 the subject’s reaction time was 2 minutes and the card was sideways.

The second part of the test is the inquiry phase. The cards are shown again individually to the respondent. There are five dimensions on which the subject’s response is scored on. The dimensions are location, form quality, content, and frequency of occurrence.

The first dimension, location, is where on the inkblot the subject saw his/her perception. The scores for location are W, D, Dd, or DW. A score of W means the subject saw his/her perception using the whole blot. A score of D means the subject saw his/her perception using a common detail. A score of Dd means the subject saw his/her perception using an unusual detail. A score of DW means that the subject gave a confabulatory or over generalized response. For a normal subject there is usually a balance between W, D, and Dd responses. By calculating frequencies of these responses, quantitative data is available to work with. Location alone is not enough to determine a specific mental problem.

The second dimension is determinant, which is what determined response. There are four properties that can make up a response, form or shape, perceived movement, color, and shading. The score is determined off of which property the subject utilizes to develop a response. For example if the subject’s response was just based of the perceived form it would be a pure form response. There are also subdivisions within the properties. Perceived movement can be further divided into human (M), animal (FM), or inanimate (m) movements. The determinant is the most difficult to score because administration instructions are so vague. Also a major part of scoring determinant is the examiner’s interpretation of the inkblot. It would be best if the examiner had intense experience, but this is not very likely.

Determinant scoring stirs up controversy. Many experts believe that scoring perceived movement does not measure psychological issues. Perceived movement may measure motor activity and impulses in the brain. It was believed that subjects that gave two cooperative movement responses were easy to interact with. Research studies illustrates that this theory wrong.

The third property, form quality, is the measure of how well the subject’s response equates with the stimulus properties of the inkblot. If the examiner is able to see the subject’s perception then there is adequate form quality. If the examiner is unable to see the subject’s perception then there is poor form quality. This is not a reliable measure due to the dependence on the state of the examiner. Exner designed a comprehensive system to increase reliability of scoring.

The fourth property, content, is what the perception was. This is simple to score. The perception must fall into three categories: human (H), animal (A), or nature (N).

The final property, frequency of occurrence, is how popular the response is. This is a quantitative measure, therefore easy to score.

Despite the fact that the Rorschach test is widely used, it has never been adequately normed. Exner attempted to norm the Rorschach in 1986. It was based off of the average adult American. Exner then used his findings to apply to the scoring of each variable. This proved to be helpful to the examiners of the Rorschach. Exner had to renorm the Rorschach due to faulty norm samples in his first attempt. With his new sample, it was found that his original system overpathologized subjects.

The consequences from overpathologizing are immense. If the Rorschach is utilized to diagnose one with a psychological disorder, there is a good chance it over-diagnosed the subject. The Rorschach has been known to be used in forensics. If someone wishes to use the insanity plea, the Rorschach could benefit the perpetrator.

The Rorschach’s reliability is even controversial. There are many studies arguing for and against its reliability. A meta-analysis was conducted of all past research done on Rorschach’s reliability. Exner argued that the test-retest coefficients are in the .70’s and that is acceptable. The odd-even technique results were in that range. Exner’s Comprehensive system produced adequate reliability, .61 to .74. The environment in which the test is administered profoundly affects the reliability. It can be found that the reliability in forensic and clinical settings is .80 to .90.

Rorschach main component is relating to psychological disorders. Although when studies were conducted to prove Rorschach as a sufficient diagnostic tool, the results were not in favor of Rorschach. Even with the revised Comprehensive System by Exner, the test fails to relate to diagnoses. Major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorder and antisocial disorders are just a few disorders that do not link to Rorschach’s test.

The incremental validity of Rorschach with MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) have been proved and disproved by studies. This is another example of the controversy surrounding the Rorschach impact on the psychological community.

LA Times writer, Rosie Mestel reveals interesting background information about how Rorschach developed this theory. As a boy, Rorschach enjoyed a game in which players made ink blots then described what they say. Then as a psychiatrist he noticed that schizophrenic patients saw unusual things in ink blots. He then studied the responses of ordinary people and his schizophrenic patients.

He then published his book with less than an enthusiastic response from the Swiss psychological community. Less than a year later the original publishing company went bankrupt and Rorschach died from a ruptured appendix. It wasn’t until the test reached the United States that it became famous. With all the controversy surrounding the test, it almost died out in the United States. John Exner saved the Rorschach from dying out. Yet, even today Exner’s version is under heat for unreliability and invalidity.

Studies have been done to identify if the Rorschach could aid in differentiating psychological disorders from each other. A study was done in 2001 to determine the Rorschach’s ability to distinguish boys with Asperger’s Disorder from other psychological disorders. According to the results those boys who “underreport[ed] human content (H) or human movement (M), and cooperative movement (COP) in humans or animals” were more likely to have Asperger’s Disorder (Holaday, Moak, & Shipley, 2001). Although the Rorschach doesn’t coincide with DSM-IV criteria, it provides psychologists to differentiate those boys with Asperger’s Disorder.

A major disorder that the Rorschach has evidence to identify is Narcissism. It is reiterated that the Rorschach was not derived from DSM-IV criteria, but it relates well in the area of narcissism. Those who are more apt to narcissism relate ink blots on a personal level (Hilsenroth, M. J., Fowler, J.C., Padawer, J.R., & Handler, L., 1997). The two variables in the Rorschach that predicted narcissism are reflection and idealization (Hilsenroth et al.).

These studies illustrate that Rorschach might not be perfect in diagnosing and identifying psychological disorders, but it is still helpful. The Rorschach can be used as a supplemental tool to further discriminate a subject from multiple disorders.

Regardless of the Rorschach’s reliability or unreliability, it is a widely used test in the world of psychology. When people think of psychological testing, a vision of inkblots comes to mind. The media has hyped the Rorschach to be a magnificent tool to diagnose “crazy” people. This accounts for the common view of the Rorschach being an accurate measure of psychological health. According to the studies done on the Rorschach’s reliability, it is not a safe measure. The United State’s Law system utilizes the test as a measure of criminal’s sanity. This is not safe for the general public. There is too much evidence to disclaim the test’s ability.

The test also leaves too much room for error on the part of the examiner. If the examiner had malicious intentions, he/she could detrimental effect the subject. This is why the Rorschach should only be used as a supplemental tool.

The Rorschach can be extremely beneficial to clinicians. Only so much information can be obtained from a personal interview and questionnaire. The Rorschach could reveal interesting parts of a person’s psyche. The information obtained from the test could be used in counseling that works on unresolved issues buried in one’s psyche. These issues could have been buried until many years of counseling forced them out. Under these circumstances the Rorschach is beneficial to both the subject and to the participating clinician. Time, money, and work could be saved by utilizing the Rorschach as a supplemental tool.

It is also very important that only professionals administer the Rorschach. Many psychological programs spend a few weeks teaching the Rorschach, but if one wishes to administer the Rorschach regularly it must be mastered. As stated before there is an enormous amount of room open for error on the examiner’s part. Scoring and administration must be practiced numerous before results are taken seriously. This is for the benefit of the clinician and to the subject. Slightly biased results are just detrimental as incorrect results.

In conclusion, the Rorschach remains a ground-breaking, controversial, and fascinating psychological test. One should not trust the results completely. Like any test there is always room for error, either on the examiner or subject’s part. It is extremely difficult to administer, score, and even take it. The Rorschach test should be respected for its ability to differentiate disorders and use as a supplemental tool in therapy. Unfortunately, the Rorschach’s reliability and validity prevent it from use as a sufficient diagnostic tool in the psychological community.

References

Hilsenroth, M.J., Fowler, J.C., & Padawer, J.R. (1997). Narcissism in the Rorschach revisited: Some reflections on empirical data. Psychological Assessment, 9, 113-121.

Holaday, M.E., Moak, J., & Shipley, M.A. (2001). Rorschach protocols from children and adolescents with Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Personal Assessment, 76, 482-495.

Mestel, R. (2003). Rorschach lore and the test’s legacy. LA Times, f5.

Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. United States: Thomson Wadsworth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you voted for clinton you're probably a losing trader- losers average losers

Dont forget to like and subscribe

On November 8, 2016, American voters took to the polls to elect our next commander in chief with a general consensus having pervaded public discourse that, love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton would become president. Her erstwhile opponent, Donald Trump, a reality television star viewed as crass and inept, having boasted about possibly sexually assaulting women in a now-infamous Access Hollywood tape, had all but forfeited the race.

In the weeks leading up to the election, Clinton exhibited dominance over her Republican challenger that lead some to speculate that she was running up the score as her campaign expanded into typically red states like Texas and Arizona. Following resounding victories in the election season’s presidential debates, Vox Editor-in-Chief Ezra Klein proclaimed to the world that “Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins.” Her polling numbers indicated a landslide was imminent. Pundits speculated that Donald Trump’s path to 270 electoral votes was slim to non-existent.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his wife Melania Trump vote at PS 59 in New York, New York, U.S. November 8,

On Election Day, news outlets blasted footage of Donald Trump, morose, defeated, slumping across the finish line in his hometown of New York, knowingly awaiting his fate. The night before, Clinton seemed to shake the earth with massive, unified rallies in Philadelphia and North Carolina, first with the Obamas and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and the second with Lady Gaga, Bruce Springsteen, and massive crowds of college students chanting “I believe that she will win!” well into the early hours of the morning. At 3:40 a.m., Clinton landed back home in Westchester, New York, where hordes of fans were lined up yet to wish her well and show their support.

The mood was electric.

On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, an exuberant group of Democratic power players celebrates following a massive r

 

On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, an exuberant group of Democratic power players celebrates following a massive rally in Philadelphia. From left to right: Michelle and Barack Obama; Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill Clinton

 

Fast forward twenty-four hours. Stunned supporters, myself included, trickled out from the official Hillary for America election night party at the Javits Convention Center in Manhattan, where Clinton did not make an appearance, leaving many to wonder if she planned to wait out the counts. It wasn’t until around 3:00 a.m., as my Bros4Hillary colleagues Rance Collins, Jason Murray, and I sat silently in the cab ride back to our apartment in Brooklyn, that the news alert flashed across my iPhone.

“Fuck,” I muttered. “She conceded.”

As the three of us burst into tears of grief and rage, our bewildered cab driver, quiet and stone-faced till that moment, shook his head and pondered just under his breath, “how could this happen?”

 

The Vultures Circled

 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) appears on CBS This Morning and offers his prescriptions for what went wrong for Democrats in t

 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) appears on CBS This Morning and offers his prescriptions for what went wrong for Democrats in the 2016 presidential race.

 

Just hours after the stunning upset that proclaimed Donald Trump president-elect, the vultures began to circle around the scene of Secretary Clinton’s political death, the body, so to speak, not even cold yet. Senator Bernie Sanders, her democratic rival in the primary, who spent the tail-end of that campaign impugning Clinton’s integrity and questioning her qualifications to lead, hit the talk show circuit immediately. Despite having begrudgingly supported Clinton following his primary defeat, he gloated now with a “told-ya-so” self-righteousness, openly implying that he should have been the nominee and offering prescriptions to the Democratic party.

“I’m deeply humiliated that the Democratic party cannot talk to [white working class people],” Sanders professed dramatically on CBS This Morning. “I think that there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite.”

Sanders, a lifelong Independent who changed his registration status to Democrat in order to run for the party’s nomination, reverted his status back to Independent only days after the Democratic National Convention in July.

His online supporters reveled. “I think the DNC made a fatal mistake ganging up on him and being biased towards Hillary,” said one Facebook user. “Even now, after the Dems lost the election, he is still more popular in the news than Hillary is. As much as I’m nervous about Trump being president…I’m glad Hillary didn’t win only because her supporters made me want her to lose.”

The morbid pile-on continued for weeks: “She didn’t campaign hard enough in swing states,” “the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders,” “she lost the white working class,” ”she just wasn’t likable enough,” “she had no plan for the economy,” “voters just didn’t want her,” or my personal favorite, “she was a flawed candidate.”

The problem with these analyses is that they are painfully reductive, overly-narrow crimes of revisionist history. In fact, most of these arguments are just plain wrong. Entertaining them without looking at the broader systemic failure at play is contributing to a pattern of failure by the media to fulfill their journalistic responsibility as editorial gatekeepers and is an historic injustice against one of the most qualified and winningest candidates to run for the presidency ever. Most importantly, they allow a problematic narrative shift that holds us back from looking at, or solving, the real problem.

Hillary Clinton did not lose the 2016 presidential election.

 

Hillary Clinton Won More Votes. A Lot More.

 

Any discussion seeking to analyze the outcome of the election MUST begin and end with the following as its central premise: “Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million.” Or, put in another way, “Hillary Clinton won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, second only to Obama.” (Note: Final tallies reported by Cook Political Report show Clinton virtually tied with President Obama’s 2012 total, for good measure.)

Final Score: @HillaryClinton beat Trump by nearly 3 MILLION (2.1%) & won more votes than any other candidate in history, 2nd only to Obama. pic.twitter.com/13S5Dy87cv

— Alex Mohajer (@AlexMohajer) December 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton, the first female major-party nominee for president in American history, won more votes than any white male to ever run for that office, ever, including her opponent, the man who would go on to become the president-elect, Donald Trump.

 

The Sanders Effect

 

For posterity, while Hillary Clinton bested Donald Trump by nearly 3 million votes in an election where 136 million ballots were counted, she defeated Bernie Sanders in the 2016 democratic primary with an even broader margin of nearly 4 million votes (and about 1,000 delegates) in a primary where only about 30 million ballots were counted. The Sanders tribe who now insist he would have fared better than Secretary Clinton in the general election still ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders was never even close to overcoming her in the primary, where she won by a veritable landslide.

584df2081c00001f000eb026.png?ops=scalefi

via Wikipedia

As early as March, Clinton pulled ahead with such a commanding lead that political insiders knew he had virtually no chance of winning. She quietly began implementing a general election strategy while publicly supporting the process, never once speaking ill of her opponent for wanting to see the primary through to completion, something she herself had done in the 2008 Democratic primary against then-Senator Barack Obama.

When she did it, however, she was at times within 100 delegates of overtaking Obama, and by some measures went on to win the popular vote. Even then, pundits said Clinton would never overcome Obama, despite a much smaller gap in delegates separating the two candidates.

Sanders knew this too, to be sure, but he let his frustration, ambition, and contempt for his rival in the final months of the campaign get the better of him, lodging all-too-familiar allegations against the Democratic National Committee of “rigging” and incessantly bashing Clinton, even calling her “unqualified.” He knew the harm that he could do to her with his impressionable and generally politically-inexperienced base, who didn’t realize that the primary was over. Democrats watched in horror as their presumptive nominee was attacked relentlessly for months by the Sanders campaign, who knowingly peddled the fiction that he could still win the primary to a fan base that simply didn’t know any better.

By May, an understandably annoyed Clinton told Chris Cuomo in an interview with CNN that she was going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, prompting Sanders to call her “arrogant” on national television. Whether Bernie Sanders believed he could make a legitimate play for super-delegates (a system he spent months bashing until it became clear it was the only mechanism by which he could win), or wishful thinking that Clinton would be indicted for the fictitious criminal conduct he knew did not exist, he knew she had won the primary. But he fed his base the red meat. And they ate it up.

Soon enough the liberal progressive voter base supporting Sanders began to regurgitate the same right wing talking points and lies used to impugn Clinton’s integrity for decades. Once maligned for being a liberal harpy and socialist, Clinton was now subjected to the cruel injustice of having fellow progressives label her “too conservative,” a “war hawk,” a “criminal,” an “imperialist.”

This of course was the same lot who believed it an omen of their candidate’s rightful claim to the presidency when a bird landed on his podium at a campaign event in Portland.

 

Fun Facts, or Lack Thereof

 

Birdie Sanders! A cogent and even-tempered Bernie Sanders gesturing towards a bird at a campaign rally in Portland, Oregon on

 

Birdie Sanders! A cogent and even-tempered Bernie Sanders gesturing towards a bird at a campaign rally in Portland, Oregon on March 25, 2016.

 

The Birdie Sanders phenomenon was unsurprising in an election season that seemed to view facts as a nuisance, as merely an inconvenient afterthought. When Clinton supporters grimaced at the Birdie Sanders memes, the Sanders faithful were outraged.

“Paid shill!” they cried. “Hillbot!”

I myself was accused numerous times across social media of being a paid subsidiary of the Clinton campaign or David Brock’s Correct the Record, something that is categorically false and easily discoverable in a 10-second Google search.

A week before the election, I was caught completely off-guard by a close friend and fellow liberal who revealed that she refused to vote for Clinton. “She’s just corrupt. There’s too much evidence if you look out for it,” she stated, sending me this photograph to support her reasoning:

Circa 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton from New York sharing an embrace with the late Robert Byrd, the renowned Senator and parl

 

Circa 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton from New York sharing an embrace with the late Robert Byrd, the renowned Senator and parliamentarian from West Virginia. Byrd passed away in 2010.

 

This photograph was shared extensively in the dark corners of the fake internet and by the Republican nominee himself to support claims that Clinton had ties to the KKK. To hear this propaganda from an educated, liberal-minded, millennial-aged woman who lives in California, however, was nothing short of problematic.

The photo depicts then-Senator Hillary Clinton of New York sharing an embrace with her colleague Robert Byrd in 2004. Byrd, a Democratic Senator from West Virginia, passed away in 2010 as the longest serving Congressman in history. Senator Byrd was well-respected and a master parliamentarian. He did join the KKK in the 1940s, but then proceeded to quit in 1952, spending the rest of his life repenting for his brief involvement and acknowledging it was wrong. The NAACP even mourned Byrd after his passing. He had been out of the KKK for more than fifty years when this photograph was taken.

This is just one of literally hundreds of examples of lies that have been propagated about Clinton over the years that have been packaged as news, or that legitimate news sources will falsely equivocate with the truth. These items spread like wildfire through fake news channels. The time required to engage with and disprove each accusation point by point with each person who consumed it would be impossible.

“Fake news” is a major problem that has had an out-sized impact on our politics and our presidential election. It is not a new phenomenon, but it has reached fever pitch. Until legislation is passed that addresses the problem and/or the heads of various social media companies implement policies to forbid them, the proliferation of fake news will continue to meddle with our elections.

 

MAN, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN

 

Democratic faithful thought by November that the damage done by Sanders’ hail-Mary strategy would soften and fade. A week before the election, “Benghazi” and “Hillary Clinton’s e-mails” were still ridiculous fodder being churned out by the mainstream media and consumed ravenously by the electorate. The media failed time and time again to call these stories for what they were: Outright lies.

The media failed to distinguish between false equivalencies, and Clinton’s adversaries subsequently were able to malign and abuse her unchecked and ad nauseam, for one obvious reason. No one wants to admit it, her adversaries scoff at it, and even women seem to downplay it’s significance in the election: misogyny. The 2016 presidential election, much like in 2008, revealed staggering gender biases, mostly in the constant and baseless scrutiny of Clinton’s character.

This now-infamous photograph spurred the “Texts from Hillary” internet meme and demarcates a time when Clinton was beloved as

 

This now-infamous photograph spurred the “Texts from Hillary” internet meme and demarcates a time when Clinton was beloved as Secretary of State, receiving high marks from the media and the public alike. In 2012 her approval ratings soared to 69%.

 

Women, after all, cannot seek power without being innately bad, evil, or corrupt. Gender studies experts have talked about this phenomenon at length, and yet we failed to highlight the way it was taking shape in the campaign before our eyes. Sanders and Trump both made habits out of interrupting Clinton during their respective debates, wagging their fingers at her, criticizing her voice, accusing her of “shouting,” of not “smiling enough.” Trump famously called Clinton a “nasty woman” when she got under his skin at the third presidential debate, and vowed to put her “in jail,” one of may campaign promises on which the president-elect has already reneged.

Indeed, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders made campaign tactics out of implying or expressly stating that she was corrupt, she was bought out by the banks, she was a criminal, or she was under indictment, allegations that have never been substantiated by fact.

By campaign’s end, people genuinely believed some of the propaganda leveraged against her, even having never seen a piece of factual evidence to support it.

Studies show that then a woman excels in a job we praise her, but when she seeks to gain more power, whether through a promotion, a raise, or even running to be President of the United States, we punish her and criticize her character. We simply cannot get comfortable with the idea of a woman calling the shots. The electorate seemed to forget that when Clinton left the State Department in 2013 she was widely adored, celebrated as being the most traveled Secretary of State in American history, with soaring approval ratings well above normal for American politicians. In 2012, an unsurprisingly prescient Nate Silver opined that she would make a formidable candidate for president and enjoyed inordinately high approval ratings, but noted a puzzling historical trend in which said approval ratings inexplicably suffered whenever she was seeking office.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton has been named the most admired woman in the world by Gallup a record-breaking twenty times. And yet, Clinton’s likability and trustworthiness were constantly called into question throughout both the 2008 and 2016 campaigns to the point of being farcical.

The abuse culminated in a truly heart-breaking moment when Clinton became the first candidate in history to say “I’m sorry” during a concession speech.

Still, despite centuries of patriarchal gender norms at play, she won the democratic primary. She won by a landslide. And in the general election, she won nationally by around 2.1%. One can only imagine what these figures might look like had she been born with the benefit of being a man.

So if she won nationally, why didn’t she win the presidency? What happened? Of course, the popular vote doesn’t pick the president. So what does?

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DEMANDS REFORM

 

Clinton’s massive popular vote victory is important in that not only does it dispel shameful myths that this superb, historic candidate FAILED us in some way, but serves to highlight one of the real problems: the electoral college system of apportioning votes is no longer fair or representative. This is not to say that the electoral college must necessarily be abolished. But at the very least, it must see reforms that address the country’s vastly shifting demographics.

Donald Trump won the electoral college with 306 votes. 270 are needed to win the presidency.  The states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, with their 10, 16, and 20 respective electoral votes, all went for Trump and gave him the edge he needed.

The chilling truth: Donald Trump won those three states with a total of 79,646 votes in an election where more than 136 million people cast their ballots. That’s less than a fraction of a percentage point.

584dfd2b1800002500e42149.jpg?ops=scalefi

An honest assessment of this presidential election must look at the disproportionate power the Electoral College currently allocates to rural areas. Indeed, a vote in Wyoming has four times the power of a vote from New York, thanks to the way electoral college votes are apportioned in each state.

When the Constitution was written in 1787, the drafters conceived of it in an America that was 95 percent rural. Today, less than 20 percent of America is rural. Yet in the hundreds of years since the Constitution was ratified, or since the 12th Amendment was passed defining the application of electoral college votes, there has been no reform to reflect the massive population and demographic shifts in America.

Urban and Rural Classification from the 2010 United States Census.

Moreover, the winner-takes-all formula of allocating electoral votes in each state is a practice that Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig says is violative of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause, and a system of statewide proportional allocation of Electors would have rendered Hillary Clinton the victor in 2016.

 

HILLARY CLINTON WON THE WORKING CLASS

 

Exit polls from Michigan in the 2016 general election.Exit polls from Pennsylvania in the 2016 general election.Exit polls from Wisconsin in the 2016 general election.

Hillary Clinton, accused of having lost the 2016 presidential election because she neglected to address the needs of the white working class, did in fact WIN the white working class. CNN exit polls out of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania showed that she fared better than her opponent on the economy throughout the rust belt and nationwide.

The truth is Hillary Clinton made the working class and middle class jobs a central tenet of her campaign. She talked about these issues, and she talked about them a lot. To claim otherwise is a troubling revision in history that overlooks 16 months of campaigning on this issue. From Derek Thompson’s piece in the Atlantic:

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word  “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

The truth is that white working-class voters did favor Clinton on the economy, but on issues of terrorism or immigration, defected to Donald Trump, indicating that his often-times xenophobic, anti-immigration, and racially charged message resonated with a certain portion of the electorate. Indeed, no one has been able to answer to which era Trump was referring when he campaigned on the slogan “Make America Great Again,” but it is clear that this was merely pretext for a message of white nativist protectionism.

These are the same voters who crave social democracy, just so long as it isn’t called socialism, a dirty word amongst the majority of the American populace, and a flaw that Sanders, untested on the national stage, would have seen exposed in a general election match up.

Moreover, the cumulative total of 79,646 votes by which she lost Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania cannot in good faith be conflated to represent the white working class as a whole, especially when she won a historic number of votes and virtually tied 2012 Obama. With a margin so narrow, isn’t it possible a variety of factors were at a play, any one of which might have shifted the outcome?

 

THE REST OF IT

 

There has been a real and demonstrable systemic failure to protect the integrity of our elections that Americans must wholly reject. This isn’t conspiracy theory. This isn’t conjecture. This isn’t poor sportsmanship. This isn’t even about Hillary Clinton anymore. This is about protecting our democracy. Free and fair elections are one of the cornerstones of American democracy and we have now seen credible reports that our rights thereto have been impeded upon by:

1) Voter suppression in North Carolina and Wisconsin*;

2) Russian hacking*;

3) FBI Director Comey’s willful and intentional release of documents meant to suggest criminal wrongdoing by the Democratic nominee a week before the presidential election;

4) The use of Wikileaks as an agent for a hostile foreign power to meddle with our election;

5) A systemic failure by the news media to serve as editorial gatekeepers, differentiate false equivalencies, or to report on falsehoods propagated about the Democratic nominee.*

6) A voter-cross check system that allowed millions of valid absentee, provisional, and machine-error ballots to be wrongfully disqualified.

Is it possible that any one of these may have contributed to the 79,646 votes across Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania that contributed to Donald Trump’s victory?

Is it possible that FBI Director Comey’s letter to Congress affected the election?

There’s more evidence, too: Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA. pic.twitter.com/8r801ahDQO

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 11, 2016

Is it possible that third party votes spoiled the election?

Jill Stein is now officially the Ralph Nader of 2016.

Stein votes/Trump margin:
MI: 51,463/10,704
PA: 49,678/46,765
WI: 31,006/22,177

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) December 1, 2016

Is it possible that any number of these issues, none of which are the fault of the superb candidate who won record-breaking votes, lead to Donald Trump skipping past her with 79,646 votes?

And what of exit polls conducted by Edison Research, which show that “Clinton won four key battleground states (NC, PA, WI, and FL) in the 2016 Presidential Election that she went on to lose in the computerized vote counts.”*

Why does exit polling data show HRC won NC, PA, WI, & FL, states she lost in computerized vote counts? DEMAND AUDIT. https://t.co/6vCJgXoS5O pic.twitter.com/NOlRvowbGg

— Alex Mohajer (@AlexMohajer) November 16, 2016

“Trump voters lied in the exit polls!” say Trump’s acolytes, the same core of online miscreants who are just now decrying fake news in opposition to very real reports of Russian hacking, but did not care to make the differentiation when lobbing accusations of being foreign-born against Barack Obama or murder and corruption against Hillary Clinton.

It’s true that exit polls are not necessarily reliable historically. But with the totality of the circumstances being as they are, and with some of these findings existing outside the margin of statistical error, enough doubt has been cast on the validity of the 2016 presidential election to keep at least 66 million American voters up at night.

Allowing revisionists to shape the narrative and lay fault at the feet of Hillary Clinton for losing, whether expressly or impliedly, is a historic injustice that, if allowed to continue, only hurts us as a nation and as a democracy. It allows a shift in conversation away from crucial global and sociopolitical issues facing our society, and towards petty partisan squabbles and the unproductive blame game. If we do not respond to threats to our democracy, the epidemic of fake news, the various interventionist forces in our election, and demand action be taken, we are more culpable than either of the candidates in this election. Indeed, we are complicit in the downfall of democracy itself.

The truth? Hillary Clinton did not lose the 2016 presidential election. We did.

Alex Mohajer is a contributing political writer and commentator for the Huffington Post. In 2016, he served as Political Director of Bros4Hillary, a political advocacy organization, and is the Co-Founder of Bros4America. Named to LGBTQ Nation’s Top 8 Organizations Working to Elect Hillary Clinton. Follow him on Twitter @alexmohajer.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-hillary-lost-the-great-american-

 

Edited by mitsubishi

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By DHARMIL
      SELL BANKNIFTY F&O - ₹2300
      SELL NIFTY F&O - ₹2700
      SELL STOCKS F&O - ₹5000
      Contact : 9173302081
    • By Ninjatrader_Staff
      Here is a quick educational video we created on Options on Futures.
       
    • By Ninjatrader_Staff
      Options on futures are now available to trade through NinjaTrader Brokerage! This expansion allows options traders to save on their trades with NinjaTrader’s deep discount commissions and benefit from industry-leading support.
      Why Trade Options on Futures with NinjaTrader Brokerage?
      ·  Discount Pricing: Save on trades with simple low rates
      ·  Span Margins: Real-time portfolio margining
      ·  Low Minimum: Open your account with only $1000
      In addition to the FREE NinjaTrader platform included with all brokerage accounts, traders will also have access to the CQG Desktop web-based platform to trade options on futures.
      ·  Current Clients: Contact Brokerage Support to start trading options on futures
      ·  New Clients: Open Your Brokerage Account
      Let Us Know How We Can Help
      Contact our brokerage team at 312.262.1289 to discuss how NinjaTrader’s solutions can be customized for both new & experienced traders.

      Futures, foreign currency and options trading contains substantial risk and is not for every investor. An investor could potentially lose all or more than the initial investment. Risk capital is money that can be lost without jeopardizing ones financial security or lifestyle. Only risk capital should be used for trading and only those with sufficient risk capital should consider trading. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. View Full Risk Disclosure.
    • By George_wilson8
      I invested 60% of my retirement payment on Coin Bull and Paperex with the mindset of getting it multiplied and enjoying a better retirement life. It was sweet and smooth from the start, withdrawals were easy and consistent until it gets to a point I started to be denied withdrawals and that was how I lost all money, I couldn't get my investment amount back not talk of the bonuses. I contacted several lawyers but it was all waste of time and money, they couldn't render an inch of help. God so good to my old self and family, I later met with a certified binary options recovery expert that helped me recover my money within 5days from the brokers(Coin Bull), it was worth it, he was able to retrieve my funds. If you have found yourself in same situation as me you can contact the expert on '' Hacknet1seven1( A T)p r o t o n m a i l ( d o t c o m )" also he can render any other desired hacking services, I can assure he would be able to help you just as he helped me, you can give him a try if you don't mind. Binary options brokers shouldn't get away with this.
    • By fuqs
      Let's assume I was able to imply dividends from liquid options for the next 3 years, but I want to price an option expiring in the 4rd year from now. How would practitioners normally extrapolate implied dividends? From what i've observed there is a significant risk premium in implied dividends far out (implied divs are sold at discount). Actually the dividend term structure is declining. Therefore probably it makes more sense to extrapolate implied dividend rather than historical growth
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • good news!! It seems you can make good money at forex Why Do Many Forex Traders Lose Money? Here is the Number 1 Mistake David Rodriguez 11-14 minutes We look through 43 million real trades to measure trader performance Majority of trades are successful and yet traders are losing Reward to Risk ratios play a vital role in capital preservation Why do major currency moves bring increased trader losses? To find out, the DailyFX research team has looked through over 40 million real trades placed via a major FX broker's trading platforms. In this article, we look at the biggest mistake that forex traders make, and a way to trade appropriately. Why Does the Average Forex Trader Lose Money? The average forex trader loses money, which is in itself a very discouraging fact. But why? Put simply, human psychology makes trading difficult. We looked at over 43 million real trades placed on a major FX broker's trading servers from Q2, 2014 – Q1, 2015 and came to some very interesting conclusions. The first is encouraging: traders make money most of the time as over 50% of trades are closed out at a gain. Percent of All Trades Closed Out at a Gain and Loss per Currency Pair   Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart shows results of over 43 million trades conducted by these traders worldwide from Q2, 2014 through Q1, 2015 across the 15 most popular currency pairs. The blue bar shows the percentage of trades that ended with a profit for the trader. Red shows the percentage of trades that ended in loss. For example, the Euro saw an impressive 61% of all trades closed out at a gain. And indeed every single one of these instruments saw the majority of traders turned a profit more than 50 percent of the time. If traders were right more than half of the time, why did most lose money? Average Profit/Loss per Winning and Losing Trades per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart says it all. In blue, it shows the average number of pips traders earned on profitable trades. In red, it shows the average number of pips lost in losing trades. We can now clearly see why traders lose money despite being right more than half the time. They lose more money on their losing trades than they make on their winning trades. Let’s use EUR/USD as an example. We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. Traders were correct more than half the time, but they lost over 70% more on their losing trades as they won on winning trades. The track record for the volatile GBP/USD pair was even worse. Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. What gives? Identifying that there is a problem is important in itself, but we’ll need to understand the reasons behind it in order to look for a solution. Cut Losses, Let Profits Run – Why is this So Difficult to Do? In our study we saw that traders were very good at identifying profitable trading opportunities--closing trades out at a profit over 50 percent of the time. They utlimately lost, however, as the average loss far outweighed the gain. Open nearly any book on trading and the advice is the same: cut your losses early and let your profits run. When your trade goes against you, close it out. Take the small loss and then try again later, if appropriate. It is better to take a small loss early than a big loss later. If a trade is in your favor, let it run. It is often tempting to close out at a small gain in order to protect profits, but oftentimes we see that patience can result in greater gains. But if the solution is so simple, why is the issue so common? The simple answer: human nature. In fact this is not at all limited to trading. To further illustrate the point we draw on significant findings in psychology. A Simple Wager – Understanding Human Behavior Towards Winning and Losing What if I offered you a simple wager on a coin flip? You have two choices. Choice A means you have a 50% chance of winning 1000 dollars and 50% chance of winning nothing. Choice B is a flat 450 point gain. Which would you choose?         Expected Return Gains Choice A 50% chance to Win 1000 50% chance to Win 0 Expect to win $500 over time   Choice B Win 450   Win $450 Over time it makes sense to take Choice A—the expected gain of $500 is greater than the fixed $450. Yet many studies have shown that most people will consistently choose Choice B. Let’s flip the wager and run it again.         Expected Return Losses Choice A 50% chance to Lose 1000 50% chance to Lose 0 Expect to lose $500 over time   Choice B Lose 450   Lose $450 In this case we can expect to lose less money via Choice B, but in fact studies have shown that the majority of people will pick choice A every single time. Here we see the issue. Most people avoid risk when it comes to taking profits but then actively seek it if it means avoiding a loss. Why? Losses Hurt Psychologically far more than Gains Give Pleasure – Prospect Theory Nobel prize-winning clinical psychologist Daniel Kahneman based on his research on decision making. His work wasn’t on trading per se but clear implications for trade management and is quite relevant to FX trading. His study on Prospect Theory attempted to model and predict choices people would make between scenarios involving known risks and rewards. The findings showed something remarkably simple yet profound: most people took more pain from losses than pleasure from gains. It feels “good enough” to make $450 versus $500, but accepting a $500 loss hurts too much and many are willing to gamble that the trade turns around. This doesn’t make any sense from a trading perspective—500 dollars lost are equivalent to 500 dollars gained; one is not worth more than the other. Why should we then act so differently? Prospect Theory: Losses Typically Hurt Far More than Gains Give Pleasure Taking a purely rational approach to markets means treating a 50 point gain as morally equivalent to a 50 point loss. Unfortunately our data on real trader behavior suggests that the majority can’t do this. We need to think more systematically to improve our chances at success. Avoid the Common Pitfall Avoiding the loss-making problem described above is very simple in theory: gain more in each winning trade than you give back in each losing trade. But how might we do it concretely? When trading, always follow one simple rule: always seek a bigger reward than the loss you are risking. This is a valuable piece of advice that can be found in almost every trading book. Typically, this is called a “reward/risk ratio”. If you risk losing the same number of pips as you hope to gain, then your reward/risk ratio is 1-to-1 (also written 1:1). If you target a profit of 80 pips with a risk of 40 pips, then you have a 2:1 reward/risk ratio. If you follow this simple rule, you can be right on the direction of only half of your trades and still make money because you will earn more profits on your winning trades than losses on your losing trades. What ratio should you use? It depends on the type of trade you are making. We recommend to always use a minimum 1:1 ratio. That way, if you are right only half the time, you will at least break even. Certain strategies and trading techniques tend to produce high winning percentages as we saw with real trader data. If this is the case, it is possible to use a lower reward/risk ratio—such as between 1:1 and 2:1. For lower probability trading, a higher reward/risk ratio is recommended, such as 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1. Remember, the higher the reward/risk ratio you choose, the less often you need to correctly predict market direction in order to make money trading. We will discuss different trading techniques in further detail in subsequent installments of this series. Stick to Your Plan: Use Stops and Limits Once you have a trading plan that uses a proper reward/risk ratio, the next challenge is to stick to the plan. Remember, it is natural for humans to want to hold on to losses and take profits early, but it makes for bad trading. We must overcome this natural tendency and remove our emotions from trading. The best way to do this is to set up your trade with Stop-Loss and Limit orders from the beginning. This will allow you to use the proper reward/risk ratio (1:1 or higher) from the outset, and to stick to it. Once you set them, don’t touch them (One exception: you can move your stop in your favor to lock in profits as the market moves in your favor). Managing your risk in this way is a part of what many traders call “money management”. Many of the most successful forex traders are right about the market’s direction less than half the time. Since they practice good money management, they cut their losses quickly and let their profits run, so they are still profitable in their overall trading. Does Using 1:1 Reward to Risk Really Work? Our data certainly suggest it does. We use our data on our top 15 currency pairs to determine which trader accounts closed their Average Gain at least as large as their Average Loss—or a minimum Reward:Risk of 1:1. Were traders ultimately profitable if they stuck to this rule? Past performance is not indicative of future results, but the results certainly support it. Our data shows that 53 percent of all accounts which operated on at least a 1:1 Reward to Risk ratio turned a net-profit in our 12-month sample period. Those under 1:1? A mere 17 percent. Traders who adhered to this rule were 3 times more likely to turn a profit over the course of these 12 months—a substantial difference. Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Game Plan: What Strategy Can I Use? Trade forex with stops and limits set to a risk/reward ratio of 1:1 or higher Whenever you place a trade, make sure that you use a stop-loss order. Always make sure that your profit target is at least as far away from your entry price as your stop-loss is. You can certainly set your price target higher, and probably should aim for at least 1:1 regardless of strategy, potentially 2:1 or more in certain circumstances. Then you can choose the market direction correctly only half the time and still make money in your account. The actual distance you place your stops and limits will depend on the conditions in the market at the time, such as volatility, currency pair, and where you see support and resistance. You can apply the same reward/risk ratio to any trade. If you have a stop level 40 pips away from entry, you should have a profit target 40 pips or more away. If you have a stop level 500 pips away, your profit target should be at least 500 pips away. We will use this as a basis for further study on real trader behavior as we look to uncover the traits of successful traders. *Data is drawn from FXCM Inc. accounts excluding Eligible Contract Participants, Clearing Accounts, Hong Kong, and Japan subsidiaries from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Interested in developing your own strategy? On page 2 of our Building Confidence in Trading Guide, we help you identify your trading style and create your own trading plan. Why Do Many Forex Traders Lose Money? Here is the Number 1 Mistake David Rodriguez 11-14 minutes We look through 43 million real trades to measure trader performance Majority of trades are successful and yet traders are losing Reward to Risk ratios play a vital role in capital preservation Why do major currency moves bring increased trader losses? To find out, the DailyFX research team has looked through over 40 million real trades placed via a major FX broker's trading platforms. In this article, we look at the biggest mistake that forex traders make, and a way to trade appropriately. Why Does the Average Forex Trader Lose Money? The average forex trader loses money, which is in itself a very discouraging fact. But why? Put simply, human psychology makes trading difficult. We looked at over 43 million real trades placed on a major FX broker's trading servers from Q2, 2014 – Q1, 2015 and came to some very interesting conclusions. The first is encouraging: traders make money most of the time as over 50% of trades are closed out at a gain. Percent of All Trades Closed Out at a Gain and Loss per Currency Pair     Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart shows results of over 43 million trades conducted by these traders worldwide from Q2, 2014 through Q1, 2015 across the 15 most popular currency pairs. The blue bar shows the percentage of trades that ended with a profit for the trader. Red shows the percentage of trades that ended in loss. For example, the Euro saw an impressive 61% of all trades closed out at a gain. And indeed every single one of these instruments saw the majority of traders turned a profit more than 50 percent of the time. If traders were right more than half of the time, why did most lose money? Average Profit/Loss per Winning and Losing Trades per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart says it all. In blue, it shows the average number of pips traders earned on profitable trades. In red, it shows the average number of pips lost in losing trades. We can now clearly see why traders lose money despite being right more than half the time. They lose more money on their losing trades than they make on their winning trades. Let’s use EUR/USD as an example. We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. Traders were correct more than half the time, but they lost over 70% more on their losing trades as they won on winning trades. The track record for the volatile GBP/USD pair was even worse. Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. What gives? Identifying that there is a problem is important in itself, but we’ll need to understand the reasons behind it in order to look for a solution. Cut Losses, Let Profits Run – Why is this So Difficult to Do? In our study we saw that traders were very good at identifying profitable trading opportunities--closing trades out at a profit over 50 percent of the time. They utlimately lost, however, as the average loss far outweighed the gain. Open nearly any book on trading and the advice is the same: cut your losses early and let your profits run. When your trade goes against you, close it out. Take the small loss and then try again later, if appropriate. It is better to take a small loss early than a big loss later. If a trade is in your favor, let it run. It is often tempting to close out at a small gain in order to protect profits, but oftentimes we see that patience can result in greater gains. But if the solution is so simple, why is the issue so common? The simple answer: human nature. In fact this is not at all limited to trading. To further illustrate the point we draw on significant findings in psychology. A Simple Wager – Understanding Human Behavior Towards Winning and Losing What if I offered you a simple wager on a coin flip? You have two choices. Choice A means you have a 50% chance of winning 1000 dollars and 50% chance of winning nothing. Choice B is a flat 450 point gain. Which would you choose?         Expected Return Gains Choice A 50% chance to Win 1000 50% chance to Win 0 Expect to win $500 over time   Choice B Win 450   Win $450 Over time it makes sense to take Choice A—the expected gain of $500 is greater than the fixed $450. Yet many studies have shown that most people will consistently choose Choice B. Let’s flip the wager and run it again.         Expected Return Losses Choice A 50% chance to Lose 1000 50% chance to Lose 0 Expect to lose $500 over time   Choice B Lose 450   Lose $450 In this case we can expect to lose less money via Choice B, but in fact studies have shown that the majority of people will pick choice A every single time. Here we see the issue. Most people avoid risk when it comes to taking profits but then actively seek it if it means avoiding a loss. Why? Losses Hurt Psychologically far more than Gains Give Pleasure – Prospect Theory Nobel prize-winning clinical psychologist Daniel Kahneman based on his research on decision making. His work wasn’t on trading per se but clear implications for trade management and is quite relevant to FX trading. His study on Prospect Theory attempted to model and predict choices people would make between scenarios involving known risks and rewards. The findings showed something remarkably simple yet profound: most people took more pain from losses than pleasure from gains. It feels “good enough” to make $450 versus $500, but accepting a $500 loss hurts too much and many are willing to gamble that the trade turns around. This doesn’t make any sense from a trading perspective—500 dollars lost are equivalent to 500 dollars gained; one is not worth more than the other. Why should we then act so differently? Prospect Theory: Losses Typically Hurt Far More than Gains Give Pleasure Taking a purely rational approach to markets means treating a 50 point gain as morally equivalent to a 50 point loss. Unfortunately our data on real trader behavior suggests that the majority can’t do this. We need to think more systematically to improve our chances at success. Avoid the Common Pitfall Avoiding the loss-making problem described above is very simple in theory: gain more in each winning trade than you give back in each losing trade. But how might we do it concretely? When trading, always follow one simple rule: always seek a bigger reward than the loss you are risking. This is a valuable piece of advice that can be found in almost every trading book. Typically, this is called a “reward/risk ratio”. If you risk losing the same number of pips as you hope to gain, then your reward/risk ratio is 1-to-1 (also written 1:1). If you target a profit of 80 pips with a risk of 40 pips, then you have a 2:1 reward/risk ratio. If you follow this simple rule, you can be right on the direction of only half of your trades and still make money because you will earn more profits on your winning trades than losses on your losing trades. What ratio should you use? It depends on the type of trade you are making. We recommend to always use a minimum 1:1 ratio. That way, if you are right only half the time, you will at least break even. Certain strategies and trading techniques tend to produce high winning percentages as we saw with real trader data. If this is the case, it is possible to use a lower reward/risk ratio—such as between 1:1 and 2:1. For lower probability trading, a higher reward/risk ratio is recommended, such as 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1. Remember, the higher the reward/risk ratio you choose, the less often you need to correctly predict market direction in order to make money trading. We will discuss different trading techniques in further detail in subsequent installments of this series. Stick to Your Plan: Use Stops and Limits Once you have a trading plan that uses a proper reward/risk ratio, the next challenge is to stick to the plan. Remember, it is natural for humans to want to hold on to losses and take profits early, but it makes for bad trading. We must overcome this natural tendency and remove our emotions from trading. The best way to do this is to set up your trade with Stop-Loss and Limit orders from the beginning. This will allow you to use the proper reward/risk ratio (1:1 or higher) from the outset, and to stick to it. Once you set them, don’t touch them (One exception: you can move your stop in your favor to lock in profits as the market moves in your favor). Managing your risk in this way is a part of what many traders call “money management”. Many of the most successful forex traders are right about the market’s direction less than half the time. Since they practice good money management, they cut their losses quickly and let their profits run, so they are still profitable in their overall trading. Does Using 1:1 Reward to Risk Really Work? Our data certainly suggest it does. We use our data on our top 15 currency pairs to determine which trader accounts closed their Average Gain at least as large as their Average Loss—or a minimum Reward:Risk of 1:1. Were traders ultimately profitable if they stuck to this rule? Past performance is not indicative of future results, but the results certainly support it. Our data shows that 53 percent of all accounts which operated on at least a 1:1 Reward to Risk ratio turned a net-profit in our 12-month sample period. Those under 1:1? A mere 17 percent. Traders who adhered to this rule were 3 times more likely to turn a profit over the course of these 12 months—a substantial difference. Why Do Many Forex Traders Lose Money? Here is the Number 1 Mistake David Rodriguez 11-14 minutes We look through 43 million real trades to measure trader performance Majority of trades are successful and yet traders are losing Reward to Risk ratios play a vital role in capital preservation Why do major currency moves bring increased trader losses? To find out, the DailyFX research team has looked through over 40 million real trades placed via a major FX broker's trading platforms. In this article, we look at the biggest mistake that forex traders make, and a way to trade appropriately. Why Does the Average Forex Trader Lose Money? The average forex trader loses money, which is in itself a very discouraging fact. But why? Put simply, human psychology makes trading difficult. We looked at over 43 million real trades placed on a major FX broker's trading servers from Q2, 2014 – Q1, 2015 and came to some very interesting conclusions. The first is encouraging: traders make money most of the time as over 50% of trades are closed out at a gain. Percent of All Trades Closed Out at a Gain and Loss per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart shows results of over 43 million trades conducted by these traders worldwide from Q2, 2014 through Q1, 2015 across the 15 most popular currency pairs. The blue bar shows the percentage of trades that ended with a profit for the trader. Red shows the percentage of trades that ended in loss. For example, the Euro saw an impressive 61% of all trades closed out at a gain. And indeed every single one of these instruments saw the majority of traders turned a profit more than 50 percent of the time. If traders were right more than half of the time, why did most lose money? Average Profit/Loss per Winning and Losing Trades per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart says it all. In blue, it shows the average number of pips traders earned on profitable trades. In red, it shows the average number of pips lost in losing trades. We can now clearly see why traders lose money despite being right more than half the time. They lose more money on their losing trades than they make on their winning trades. Let’s use EUR/USD as an example. We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. Traders were correct more than half the time, but they lost over 70% more on their losing trades as they won on winning trades. The track record for the volatile GBP/USD pair was even worse. Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. What gives? Identifying that there is a problem is important in itself, but we’ll need to understand the reasons behind it in order to look for a solution. Cut Losses, Let Profits Run – Why is this So Difficult to Do? In our study we saw that traders were very good at identifying profitable trading opportunities--closing trades out at a profit over 50 percent of the time. They utlimately lost, however, as the average loss far outweighed the gain. Open nearly any book on trading and the advice is the same: cut your losses early and let your profits run. When your trade goes against you, close it out. Take the small loss and then try again later, if appropriate. It is better to take a small loss early than a big loss later. If a trade is in your favor, let it run. It is often tempting to close out at a small gain in order to protect profits, but oftentimes we see that patience can result in greater gains. But if the solution is so simple, why is the issue so common? The simple answer: human nature. In fact this is not at all limited to trading. To further illustrate the point we draw on significant findings in psychology. A Simple Wager – Understanding Human Behavior Towards Winning and Losing What if I offered you a simple wager on a coin flip? You have two choices. Choice A means you have a 50% chance of winning 1000 dollars and 50% chance of winning nothing. Choice B is a flat 450 point gain. Which would you choose?         Expected Return Gains Choice A 50% chance to Win 1000 50% chance to Win 0 Expect to win $500 over time   Choice B Win 450   Win $450 Over time it makes sense to take Choice A—the expected gain of $500 is greater than the fixed $450. Yet many studies have shown that most people will consistently choose Choice B. Let’s flip the wager and run it again.         Expected Return Losses Choice A 50% chance to Lose 1000 50% chance to Lose 0 Expect to lose $500 over time   Choice B Lose 450   Lose $450 In this case we can expect to lose less money via Choice B, but in fact studies have shown that the majority of people will pick choice A every single time. Here we see the issue. Most people avoid risk when it comes to taking profits but then actively seek it if it means avoiding a loss. Why? Losses Hurt Psychologically far more than Gains Give Pleasure – Prospect Theory Nobel prize-winning clinical psychologist Daniel Kahneman based on his research on decision making. His work wasn’t on trading per se but clear implications for trade management and is quite relevant to FX trading. His study on Prospect Theory attempted to model and predict choices people would make between scenarios involving known risks and rewards. The findings showed something remarkably simple yet profound: most people took more pain from losses than pleasure from gains. It feels “good enough” to make $450 versus $500, but accepting a $500 loss hurts too much and many are willing to gamble that the trade turns around. This doesn’t make any sense from a trading perspective—500 dollars lost are equivalent to 500 dollars gained; one is not worth more than the other. Why should we then act so differently? Prospect Theory: Losses Typically Hurt Far More than Gains Give Pleasure Taking a purely rational approach to markets means treating a 50 point gain as morally equivalent to a 50 point loss. Unfortunately our data on real trader behavior suggests that the majority can’t do this. We need to think more systematically to improve our chances at success. Avoid the Common Pitfall Avoiding the loss-making problem described above is very simple in theory: gain more in each winning trade than you give back in each losing trade. But how might we do it concretely? When trading, always follow one simple rule: always seek a bigger reward than the loss you are risking. This is a valuable piece of advice that can be found in almost every trading book. Typically, this is called a “reward/risk ratio”. If you risk losing the same number of pips as you hope to gain, then your reward/risk ratio is 1-to-1 (also written 1:1). If you target a profit of 80 pips with a risk of 40 pips, then you have a 2:1 reward/risk ratio. If you follow this simple rule, you can be right on the direction of only half of your trades and still make money because you will earn more profits on your winning trades than losses on your losing trades. What ratio should you use? It depends on the type of trade you are making. We recommend to always use a minimum 1:1 ratio. That way, if you are right only half the time, you will at least break even. Certain strategies and trading techniques tend to produce high winning percentages as we saw with real trader data. If this is the case, it is possible to use a lower reward/risk ratio—such as between 1:1 and 2:1. For lower probability trading, a higher reward/risk ratio is recommended, such as 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1. Remember, the higher the reward/risk ratio you choose, the less often you need to correctly predict market direction in order to make money trading. We will discuss different trading techniques in further detail in subsequent installments of this series. Stick to Your Plan: Use Stops and Limits Once you have a trading plan that uses a proper reward/risk ratio, the next challenge is to stick to the plan. Remember, it is natural for humans to want to hold on to losses and take profits early, but it makes for bad trading. We must overcome this natural tendency and remove our emotions from trading. The best way to do this is to set up your trade with Stop-Loss and Limit orders from the beginning. This will allow you to use the proper reward/risk ratio (1:1 or higher) from the outset, and to stick to it. Once you set them, don’t touch them (One exception: you can move your stop in your favor to lock in profits as the market moves in your favor). Managing your risk in this way is a part of what many traders call “money management”. Many of the most successful forex traders are right about the market’s direction less than half the time. Since they practice good money management, they cut their losses quickly and let their profits run, so they are still profitable in their overall trading. Does Using 1:1 Reward to Risk Really Work? Our data certainly suggest it does. We use our data on our top 15 currency pairs to determine which trader accounts closed their Average Gain at least as large as their Average Loss—or a minimum Reward:Risk of 1:1. Were traders ultimately profitable if they stuck to this rule? Past performance is not indicative of future results, but the results certainly support it. Our data shows that 53 percent of all accounts which operated on at least a 1:1 Reward to Risk ratio turned a net-profit in our 12-month sample period. Those under 1:1? A mere 17 percent. Traders who adhered to this rule were 3 times more likely to turn a profit over the course of these 12 months—a substantial difference. Why Do Many Forex Traders Lose Money? Here is the Number 1 Mistake David Rodriguez 11-14 minutes We look through 43 million real trades to measure trader performance Majority of trades are successful and yet traders are losing Reward to Risk ratios play a vital role in capital preservation Why do major currency moves bring increased trader losses? To find out, the DailyFX research team has looked through over 40 million real trades placed via a major FX broker's trading platforms. In this article, we look at the biggest mistake that forex traders make, and a way to trade appropriately. Why Does the Average Forex Trader Lose Money? The average forex trader loses money, which is in itself a very discouraging fact. But why? Put simply, human psychology makes trading difficult. We looked at over 43 million real trades placed on a major FX broker's trading servers from Q2, 2014 – Q1, 2015 and came to some very interesting conclusions. The first is encouraging: traders make money most of the time as over 50% of trades are closed out at a gain. Percent of All Trades Closed Out at a Gain and Loss per Currency Pair   Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart shows results of over 43 million trades conducted by these traders worldwide from Q2, 2014 through Q1, 2015 across the 15 most popular currency pairs. The blue bar shows the percentage of trades that ended with a profit for the trader. Red shows the percentage of trades that ended in loss. For example, the Euro saw an impressive 61% of all trades closed out at a gain. And indeed every single one of these instruments saw the majority of traders turned a profit more than 50 percent of the time. If traders were right more than half of the time, why did most lose money? Average Profit/Loss per Winning and Losing Trades per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart says it all. In blue, it shows the average number of pips traders earned on profitable trades. In red, it shows the average number of pips lost in losing trades. We can now clearly see why traders lose money despite being right more than half the time. They lose more money on their losing trades than they make on their winning trades. Let’s use EUR/USD as an example. We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. Traders were correct more than half the time, but they lost over 70% more on their losing trades as they won on winning trades. The track record for the volatile GBP/USD pair was even worse. Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. What gives? Identifying that there is a problem is important in itself, but we’ll need to understand the reasons behind it in order to look for a solution. Cut Losses, Let Profits Run – Why is this So Difficult to Do? In our study we saw that traders were very good at identifying profitable trading opportunities--closing trades out at a profit over 50 percent of the time. They utlimately lost, however, as the average loss far outweighed the gain. Open nearly any book on trading and the advice is the same: cut your losses early and let your profits run. When your trade goes against you, close it out. Take the small loss and then try again later, if appropriate. It is better to take a small loss early than a big loss later. If a trade is in your favor, let it run. It is often tempting to close out at a small gain in order to protect profits, but oftentimes we see that patience can result in greater gains. But if the solution is so simple, why is the issue so common? The simple answer: human nature. In fact this is not at all limited to trading. To further illustrate the point we draw on significant findings in psychology. A Simple Wager – Understanding Human Behavior Towards Winning and Losing What if I offered you a simple wager on a coin flip? You have two choices. Choice A means you have a 50% chance of winning 1000 dollars and 50% chance of winning nothing. Choice B is a flat 450 point gain. Which would you choose?         Expected Return Gains Choice A 50% chance to Win 1000 50% chance to Win 0 Expect to win $500 over time   Choice B Win 450   Win $450 Over time it makes sense to take Choice A—the expected gain of $500 is greater than the fixed $450. Yet many studies have shown that most people will consistently choose Choice B. Let’s flip the wager and run it again.         Expected Return Losses Choice A 50% chance to Lose 1000 50% chance to Lose 0 Expect to lose $500 over time   Choice B Lose 450   Lose $450 In this case we can expect to lose less money via Choice B, but in fact studies have shown that the majority of people will pick choice A every single time. Here we see the issue. Most people avoid risk when it comes to taking profits but then actively seek it if it means avoiding a loss. Why? Losses Hurt Psychologically far more than Gains Give Pleasure – Prospect Theory Nobel prize-winning clinical psychologist Daniel Kahneman based on his research on decision making. His work wasn’t on trading per se but clear implications for trade management and is quite relevant to FX trading. His study on Prospect Theory attempted to model and predict choices people would make between scenarios involving known risks and rewards. The findings showed something remarkably simple yet profound: most people took more pain from losses than pleasure from gains. It feels “good enough” to make $450 versus $500, but accepting a $500 loss hurts too much and many are willing to gamble that the trade turns around. This doesn’t make any sense from a trading perspective—500 dollars lost are equivalent to 500 dollars gained; one is not worth more than the other. Why should we then act so differently? Prospect Theory: Losses Typically Hurt Far More than Gains Give Pleasure Taking a purely rational approach to markets means treating a 50 point gain as morally equivalent to a 50 point loss. Unfortunately our data on real trader behavior suggests that the majority can’t do this. We need to think more systematically to improve our chances at success. Avoid the Common Pitfall Avoiding the loss-making problem described above is very simple in theory: gain more in each winning trade than you give back in each losing trade. But how might we do it concretely? When trading, always follow one simple rule: always seek a bigger reward than the loss you are risking. This is a valuable piece of advice that can be found in almost every trading book. Typically, this is called a “reward/risk ratio”. If you risk losing the same number of pips as you hope to gain, then your reward/risk ratio is 1-to-1 (also written 1:1). If you target a profit of 80 pips with a risk of 40 pips, then you have a 2:1 reward/risk ratio. If you follow this simple rule, you can be right on the direction of only half of your trades and still make money because you will earn more profits on your winning trades than losses on your losing trades. What ratio should you use? It depends on the type of trade you are making. We recommend to always use a minimum 1:1 ratio. That way, if you are right only half the time, you will at least break even. Certain strategies and trading techniques tend to produce high winning percentages as we saw with real trader data. If this is the case, it is possible to use a lower reward/risk ratio—such as between 1:1 and 2:1. For lower probability trading, a higher reward/risk ratio is recommended, such as 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1. Remember, the higher the reward/risk ratio you choose, the less often you need to correctly predict market direction in order to make money trading. We will discuss different trading techniques in further detail in subsequent installments of this series. Stick to Your Plan: Use Stops and Limits Once you have a trading plan that uses a proper reward/risk ratio, the next challenge is to stick to the plan. Remember, it is natural for humans to want to hold on to losses and take profits early, but it makes for bad trading. We must overcome this natural tendency and remove our emotions from trading. The best way to do this is to set up your trade with Stop-Loss and Limit orders from the beginning. This will allow you to use the proper reward/risk ratio (1:1 or higher) from the outset, and to stick to it. Once you set them, don’t touch them (One exception: you can move your stop in your favor to lock in profits as the market moves in your favor). Managing your risk in this way is a part of what many traders call “money management”. Many of the most successful forex traders are right about the market’s direction less than half the time. Since they practice good money management, they cut their losses quickly and let their profits run, so they are still profitable in their overall trading. Does Using 1:1 Reward to Risk Really Work? Our data certainly suggest it does. We use our data on our top 15 currency pairs to determine which trader accounts closed their Average Gain at least as large as their Average Loss—or a minimum Reward:Risk of 1:1. Were traders ultimately profitable if they stuck to this rule? Past performance is not indicative of future results, but the results certainly support it. Our data shows that 53 percent of all accounts which operated on at least a 1:1 Reward to Risk ratio turned a net-profit in our 12-month sample period. Those under 1:1? A mere 17 percent. Traders who adhered to this rule were 3 times more likely to turn a profit over the course of these 12 months—a substantial difference. Why Do Many Forex Traders Lose Money? Here is the Number 1 Mistake David Rodriguez 11-14 minutes We look through 43 million real trades to measure trader performance Majority of trades are successful and yet traders are losing Reward to Risk ratios play a vital role in capital preservation Why do major currency moves bring increased trader losses? To find out, the DailyFX research team has looked through over 40 million real trades placed via a major FX broker's trading platforms. In this article, we look at the biggest mistake that forex traders make, and a way to trade appropriately. Why Does the Average Forex Trader Lose Money? The average forex trader loses money, which is in itself a very discouraging fact. But why? Put simply, human psychology makes trading difficult. We looked at over 43 million real trades placed on a major FX broker's trading servers from Q2, 2014 – Q1, 2015 and came to some very interesting conclusions. The first is encouraging: traders make money most of the time as over 50% of trades are closed out at a gain. Percent of All Trades Closed Out at a Gain and Loss per Currency Pair   Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart shows results of over 43 million trades conducted by these traders worldwide from Q2, 2014 through Q1, 2015 across the 15 most popular currency pairs. The blue bar shows the percentage of trades that ended with a profit for the trader. Red shows the percentage of trades that ended in loss. For example, the Euro saw an impressive 61% of all trades closed out at a gain. And indeed every single one of these instruments saw the majority of traders turned a profit more than 50 percent of the time. If traders were right more than half of the time, why did most lose money? Average Profit/Loss per Winning and Losing Trades per Currency Pair Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. The above chart says it all. In blue, it shows the average number of pips traders earned on profitable trades. In red, it shows the average number of pips lost in losing trades. We can now clearly see why traders lose money despite being right more than half the time. They lose more money on their losing trades than they make on their winning trades. Let’s use EUR/USD as an example. We see that EUR/USD trades were closed out at a profit 61% of the time, but the average losing trade was worth 83 pips while the average winner was only 48 pips. Traders were correct more than half the time, but they lost over 70% more on their losing trades as they won on winning trades. The track record for the volatile GBP/USD pair was even worse. Traders captured profits on 59% of all GBP/USD trades. Yet they overall lost money as they turned an average 43 pip profit on each winner and lost 83 pips on losing trades. What gives? Identifying that there is a problem is important in itself, but we’ll need to understand the reasons behind it in order to look for a solution. Cut Losses, Let Profits Run – Why is this So Difficult to Do? In our study we saw that traders were very good at identifying profitable trading opportunities--closing trades out at a profit over 50 percent of the time. They utlimately lost, however, as the average loss far outweighed the gain. Open nearly any book on trading and the advice is the same: cut your losses early and let your profits run. When your trade goes against you, close it out. Take the small loss and then try again later, if appropriate. It is better to take a small loss early than a big loss later. If a trade is in your favor, let it run. It is often tempting to close out at a small gain in order to protect profits, but oftentimes we see that patience can result in greater gains. But if the solution is so simple, why is the issue so common? The simple answer: human nature. In fact this is not at all limited to trading. To further illustrate the point we draw on significant findings in psychology. A Simple Wager – Understanding Human Behavior Towards Winning and Losing What if I offered you a simple wager on a coin flip? You have two choices. Choice A means you have a 50% chance of winning 1000 dollars and 50% chance of winning nothing. Choice B is a flat 450 point gain. Which would you choose?         Expected Return Gains Choice A 50% chance to Win 1000 50% chance to Win 0 Expect to win $500 over time   Choice B Win 450   Win $450 Over time it makes sense to take Choice A—the expected gain of $500 is greater than the fixed $450. Yet many studies have shown that most people will consistently choose Choice B. Let’s flip the wager and run it again.         Expected Return Losses Choice A 50% chance to Lose 1000 50% chance to Lose 0 Expect to lose $500 over time   Choice B Lose 450   Lose $450 In this case we can expect to lose less money via Choice B, but in fact studies have shown that the majority of people will pick choice A every single time. Here we see the issue. Most people avoid risk when it comes to taking profits but then actively seek it if it means avoiding a loss. Why? Losses Hurt Psychologically far more than Gains Give Pleasure – Prospect Theory Nobel prize-winning clinical psychologist Daniel Kahneman based on his research on decision making. His work wasn’t on trading per se but clear implications for trade management and is quite relevant to FX trading. His study on Prospect Theory attempted to model and predict choices people would make between scenarios involving known risks and rewards. The findings showed something remarkably simple yet profound: most people took more pain from losses than pleasure from gains. It feels “good enough” to make $450 versus $500, but accepting a $500 loss hurts too much and many are willing to gamble that the trade turns around. This doesn’t make any sense from a trading perspective—500 dollars lost are equivalent to 500 dollars gained; one is not worth more than the other. Why should we then act so differently? Prospect Theory: Losses Typically Hurt Far More than Gains Give Pleasure Taking a purely rational approach to markets means treating a 50 point gain as morally equivalent to a 50 point loss. Unfortunately our data on real trader behavior suggests that the majority can’t do this. We need to think more systematically to improve our chances at success. Avoid the Common Pitfall Avoiding the loss-making problem described above is very simple in theory: gain more in each winning trade than you give back in each losing trade. But how might we do it concretely? When trading, always follow one simple rule: always seek a bigger reward than the loss you are risking. This is a valuable piece of advice that can be found in almost every trading book. Typically, this is called a “reward/risk ratio”. If you risk losing the same number of pips as you hope to gain, then your reward/risk ratio is 1-to-1 (also written 1:1). If you target a profit of 80 pips with a risk of 40 pips, then you have a 2:1 reward/risk ratio. If you follow this simple rule, you can be right on the direction of only half of your trades and still make money because you will earn more profits on your winning trades than losses on your losing trades. What ratio should you use? It depends on the type of trade you are making. We recommend to always use a minimum 1:1 ratio. That way, if you are right only half the time, you will at least break even. Certain strategies and trading techniques tend to produce high winning percentages as we saw with real trader data. If this is the case, it is possible to use a lower reward/risk ratio—such as between 1:1 and 2:1. For lower probability trading, a higher reward/risk ratio is recommended, such as 2:1, 3:1, or even 4:1. Remember, the higher the reward/risk ratio you choose, the less often you need to correctly predict market direction in order to make money trading. We will discuss different trading techniques in further detail in subsequent installments of this series. Stick to Your Plan: Use Stops and Limits Once you have a trading plan that uses a proper reward/risk ratio, the next challenge is to stick to the plan. Remember, it is natural for humans to want to hold on to losses and take profits early, but it makes for bad trading. We must overcome this natural tendency and remove our emotions from trading. The best way to do this is to set up your trade with Stop-Loss and Limit orders from the beginning. This will allow you to use the proper reward/risk ratio (1:1 or higher) from the outset, and to stick to it. Once you set them, don’t touch them (One exception: you can move your stop in your favor to lock in profits as the market moves in your favor). Managing your risk in this way is a part of what many traders call “money management”. Many of the most successful forex traders are right about the market’s direction less than half the time. Since they practice good money management, they cut their losses quickly and let their profits run, so they are still profitable in their overall trading. Does Using 1:1 Reward to Risk Really Work? Our data certainly suggest it does. We use our data on our top 15 currency pairs to determine which trader accounts closed their Average Gain at least as large as their Average Loss—or a minimum Reward:Risk of 1:1. Were traders ultimately profitable if they stuck to this rule? Past performance is not indicative of future results, but the results certainly support it. Our data shows that 53 percent of all accounts which operated on at least a 1:1 Reward to Risk ratio turned a net-profit in our 12-month sample period. Those under 1:1? A mere 17 percent. Traders who adhered to this rule were 3 times more likely to turn a profit over the course of these 12 months—a substantial difference. dont forget- like subscribe Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Game Plan: What Strategy Can I Use? Trade forex with stops and limits set to a risk/reward ratio of 1:1 or higher Whenever you place a trade, make sure that you use a stop-loss order. Always make sure that your profit target is at least as far away from your entry price as your stop-loss is. You can certainly set your price target higher, and probably should aim for at least 1:1 regardless of strategy, potentially 2:1 or more in certain circumstances. Then you can choose the market direction correctly only half the time and still make money in your account. The actual distance you place your stops and limits will depend on the conditions in the market at the time, such as volatility, currency pair, and where you see support and resistance. You can apply the same reward/risk ratio to any trade. If you have a stop level 40 pips away from entry, you should have a profit target 40 pips or more away. If you have a stop level 500 pips away, your profit target should be at least 500 pips away. We will use this as a basis for further study on real trader behavior as we look to uncover the traits of successful traders. *Data is drawn from FXCM Inc. accounts excluding Eligible Contract Participants, Clearing Accounts, Hong Kong, and Japan subsidiaries from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Interested in developing your own strategy? On page 2 of our Building Confidence in Trading Guide, we help you identify your trading style and create your own trading plan. View the next articles in the Traits of Successful Series: Trading Leverage - A Real Look at How Traders May Use it Effectively Do the Hours I Trade Matter? Yes - Quite a Bit Analysis prepared and written by David Rodriguez, Quantitative Strategist for DailyFX.com Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Game Plan: What Strategy Can I Use? Trade forex with stops and limits set to a risk/reward ratio of 1:1 or higher Whenever you place a trade, make sure that you use a stop-loss order. Always make sure that your profit target is at least as far away from your entry price as your stop-loss is. You can certainly set your price target higher, and probably should aim for at least 1:1 regardless of strategy, potentially 2:1 or more in certain circumstances. Then you can choose the market direction correctly only half the time and still make money in your account. The actual distance you place your stops and limits will depend on the conditions in the market at the time, such as volatility, currency pair, and where you see support and resistance. You can apply the same reward/risk ratio to any trade. If you have a stop level 40 pips away from entry, you should have a profit target 40 pips or more away. If you have a stop level 500 pips away, your profit target should be at least 500 pips away. We will use this as a basis for further study on real trader behavior as we look to uncover the traits of successful traders. *Data is drawn from FXCM Inc. accounts excluding Eligible Contract Participants, Clearing Accounts, Hong Kong, and Japan subsidiaries from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Interested in developing your own strategy? On page 2 of our Building Confidence in Trading Guide, we help you identify your trading style and create your own trading plan. View the next articles in the Traits of Successful Series: Trading Leverage - A Real Look at How Traders May Use it Effectively Do the Hours I Trade Matter? Yes - Quite a Bit Analysis prepared and written by David Rodriguez, Quantitative Strategist for DailyFX.com   Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Game Plan: What Strategy Can I Use? Trade forex with stops and limits set to a risk/reward ratio of 1:1 or higher Whenever you place a trade, make sure that you use a stop-loss order. Always make sure that your profit target is at least as far away from your entry price as your stop-loss is. You can certainly set your price target higher, and probably should aim for at least 1:1 regardless of strategy, potentially 2:1 or more in certain circumstances. Then you can choose the market direction correctly only half the time and still make money in your account. The actual distance you place your stops and limits will depend on the conditions in the market at the time, such as volatility, currency pair, and where you see support and resistance. You can apply the same reward/risk ratio to any trade. If you have a stop level 40 pips away from entry, you should have a profit target 40 pips or more away. If you have a stop level 500 pips away, your profit target should be at least 500 pips away. We will use this as a basis for further study on real trader behavior as we look to uncover the traits of successful traders. *Data is drawn from FXCM Inc. accounts excluding Eligible Contract Participants, Clearing Accounts, Hong Kong, and Japan subsidiaries from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Interested in developing your own strategy? On page 2 of our Building Confidence in Trading Guide, we help you identify your trading style and create your own trading plan. View the next articles in the Traits of Successful Series: Trading Leverage - A Real Look at How Traders May Use it Effectively Do the Hours I Trade Matter? Yes - Quite a Bit Analysis prepared and written by David Rodriguez, Quantitative Strategist for DailyFX.com   Data source: Derived from data from a major FX broker* across 15 most traded currency pairs from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Game Plan: What Strategy Can I Use? Trade forex with stops and limits set to a risk/reward ratio of 1:1 or higher Whenever you place a trade, make sure that you use a stop-loss order. Always make sure that your profit target is at least as far away from your entry price as your stop-loss is. You can certainly set your price target higher, and probably should aim for at least 1:1 regardless of strategy, potentially 2:1 or more in certain circumstances. Then you can choose the market direction correctly only half the time and still make money in your account. The actual distance you place your stops and limits will depend on the conditions in the market at the time, such as volatility, currency pair, and where you see support and resistance. You can apply the same reward/risk ratio to any trade. If you have a stop level 40 pips away from entry, you should have a profit target 40 pips or more away. If you have a stop level 500 pips away, your profit target should be at least 500 pips away. We will use this as a basis for further study on real trader behavior as we look to uncover the traits of successful traders. *Data is drawn from FXCM Inc. accounts excluding Eligible Contract Participants, Clearing Accounts, Hong Kong, and Japan subsidiaries from 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015. Interested in developing your own strategy? On page 2 of our Building Confidence in Trading Guide, we help you identify your trading style and create your own trading plan. View the next articles in the Traits of Successful Series: Trading Leverage - A Real Look at How Traders May Use it Effectively Do the Hours I Trade Matter? Yes - Quite a Bit Analysis prepared and written by David Rodriguez, Quantitative Strategist for DailyFX.com     View the next articles in the Traits of Successful Series: Trading Leverage - A Real Look at How Traders May Use it Effectively Do the Hours I Trade Matter? Yes - Quite a Bit Analysis prepared and written by David Rodriguez, Quantitative Strategist for DailyFX.com
    • Waiting for one constructive comment from you guys..anyone dont forget to like and subscribe
    • enjoy.. good profits in forex dont forget to like and subscribe          
    • try again..   1. MakingMoneyin ForexTradingTheForexmarkethasadailyvolumeofover $4trillionper day,dwarfingthevolumeof theequityandfuturesmarketscombined.Thousands ofpeople,allover theworld,are tradingForexandmakingtonsofmoney.Whynotyou?All youneedtostarttradingForexis acomputer andanInternetconnection.Youcan doitfrom thecomfortofyour home,inyour sparetimewithoutleavingyour dayjob. Andyoudon'tneedalargesum ofmoneytostart,youcantradeinitially withaminimal sum,or betteroff,youcanstartpracticingwithademoaccountwithouttheneedto depositanymoney.OnceyouconsiderstartingForextrading,oneofthefirstthings youneedtodois chooseabroker,choosingareliablebroker is thesinglemostcriticalfactor toForex success.We currently trade at eToro platform. After testing several Forex platforms we find this one to be the best. What made the difference is a unique feature that allow us to watch and copy the strategies and trades of the best performing traders on the platform. You can actually see each move the "Guru" traders make. This method works nicely for us. Since we started trading at this broker we noticed an increase of our successful trades and profits when compared to our former brokers. You may want to check them out.Please note that all trading involves risk. Only risk capital you're prepared to lose. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This post is for educational purposes and should not be considered as investment advice.NowIwouldstronglyencourageyoutogoandvisittheabovebroker's siterightnow evenifyouarenotyetdecidedwhether youwanttogointoForextrading.Why? Becauseitprovides tons offreeeducationmaterials,videosandbestofall ademo accountthatallows youtopracticeForextradingforfreewithouttheneedtodeposit anymoney.Simplygotothesite,registerforafreeaccountandstart"trading"-by actuallypracticingandexperiencingitfirsthandyou'll beabletodecidewhether Forex tradingisfor you.Inanycase,beforestartingtotradefor real,itis advisablethatyoupracticewithademo account.Onceyoubuildsomeskill andfeelmorecomfortablewiththesystemyou can starttradinggraduallyfor real money.GotoTo2.WhatisForexTradingForeignexchange,popularlyknownas 'Forex'or 'FX',is thetradeofasinglecurrency for another atadecidedtradepriceontheover-the-counter (OTC)marketplace.Forex is definitelytheworld's mosttradedmarket,havinganaverageturnover ofmorethan US$4trillioneachday.ComparethistotheNewYork Stock Exchange,thathasadailyturnover ofabout US$70billionanditisveryobvious howtheForexmarketisdefinitelythelargest financialmarketontheglobe.Inessence,Forexcurrencytradingis theactofsimultaneouslypurchasingoneforeign currencywhilstsellinganother,mainlyfor thepurposeofspeculation.Foreigncurrency values increase(appreciate) anddrop(depreciate) towards oneanother asaresultof varietyoffactors suchas economics andgeopolitics.ThenormalobjectiveofFXtraders is tomakemoneyfrom thesetypes ofchanges inthevalueofoneforeigncurrency againstanother byactivelyspeculatingonwhichwayforeignexchangerates arelikelytoturninthefuture.Incontrasttothemajorityoffinancialmarkets,theOTC (over-the-counter) currency marketsdoes nothaveanyphysical placeormainexchangeandtrades 24-hours every dayviaaworldwidesystem ofcompanies,financial institutionsandindividuals.Because ofthis,currencyratesarecontinuouslyrisingandfallinginvaluetowards oneanother, providingnumerous tradingchoices.Oneoftheimportantelements regardingForex's popularityis thefactthatcurrency tradingmarkets usuallyareavailable24-hours adayfromSundayeveningrightthrough toFridaynight.Buyingandsellingfollows theclock,beginningonMondaymorningin Wellington,NewZealand,movingontoAsiantradespearheadedfrom Tokyoand Singapore,aheadofgoingtoLondonandconcludingonFridayeveninginNewYork.Thefactthatprices areavailabletodeal 24-hours dailymakes certainthatprice gapping(whenever apriceleapsfrom onelevel toanother withnotradingbetween) is less andmakes surethattraders couldtakeapositioneachtimetheydesire, irrespectiveoftime,eventhoughinrealitythereareparticular 'lull' occasions when volumes tendtobebelowtheir dailyaveragewhichcouldwidenmarketspreads.Forexis aleveraged(or margined) item,whichmeansthatyouaresimplyrequiredto putinasmall percentageofthefull valueofyour positiontosetaforeignexchange trade.Becauseofthis,thechanceofprofit,orloss,fromyour primarymoneyoutlayis considerablygreater thaninconventional trading.Currencies aredesignatedbythreeletter symbols.Thestandardsymbolsfor someof themostcommonlytradedcurrencies are: EUR –EuUSD –UnitedStatesdollar CAD –Canadiandollar GBP–BritishpoundJPY–JapaneseYen AUD –Australiandollar CHF –Swiss francForextransactionsarequotedinpairsbecauseyouarebuyingonecurrencywhile sellinganother.Thefirstcurrencyis thebasecurrencyandthesecondcurrencyis the quotecurrency.Theprice,or rate,thatis quotedistheamountofthesecondcurrencyrequiredto purchaseoneunitofthefirstcurrency.For example,ifEUR/USD has anask priceof1.2327,youcanbuyoneEurofor 1.2327USdollars.Thereareso-calledmajors,for whicharound75%ofallmarketoperations onForexare held:theEUR/USD,GBP/USD,USD/CHF,andUSD/JPY.Aswesee,theUSdollar is representedinall currencypairs,thus,ifacurrencypair contains theUSdollar,this pair is consideredamajorcurrencypair.Pairs whichdonotincludetheUSdollar arecalled cross currencypairs,or cross rates.Thefollowingcross rates arethemostactively traded:EUR/CHF = euro-franc EUR/GBP= euro-sterling EUR/JPY= euro-Yen GBP/JPY= sterling-Yen AUD/JPY= aussie-Yen NZD/JPY= kiwi-YenTogiveyouatasteofwhatis happeningintheForexarenaherearesomehistoricalForexevents.Oneofthemostinterestingmovements intheForexmarketinvolvingtheBritishpound tookplaceintheSeptember16,1992.Thatdayis knownas BlackWednesdaywiththe BritishPoundpostingits biggestfall.Itwas mostlyseenintheGBP/DEM (BritishPound vs.theDeutschemark)andtheGBP/USD (BritishPoundvs.theUSdollar) currency pairs.ThefalloftheBritishpoundagainsttheUSdollar intheperiodfrom November toDecember 1992constituted25%(from2.01to1.51GBThegeneral reasonsfor this "sterlingcrisis"aresaidtobetheparticipationofGreat BritainintheEuropeancurrencysystemwithfixedexchangeratecorridors;recently passedparliamentaryelections;areductionintheBritishindustrialoutput;theBank of Englandeffortstoholdtheparityratefor theDeutschemark,as well as adramatic outflowofinvestors.Atthesametime,duetoaprofitabilityslant,theGermancurrency marketbecamemoreattractivethantheBritishone.All inall,thespeculators were rushingtosellpoundsfor Deutschemarks andfor USdollars.Theconsequencesofthis currencycrisiswereas follows:asharpincreaseintheBritishinterestratefrom 10%to15%,theBritishGovernmenthadtoacceptpounddevaluationandtosecedefrom the EuropeanMonetarySystem.Asaresult,thepoundreturnedtoafloatingexchange rate.Another intriguingcurrencypair is theUSdollar vs.theJapaneseYen(USD/JPY).The USdollar andJapaneseYenis thethirdonthelistofmosttradedcurrencypairs after theEUR/USDandGBP/USD.Itistradedmostactivelyduringsessions inAsia. Movementsofthis pairareusuallysmooth;theUSD/JPYpair quicklyreacts totherisk peakingoffinancialmarkets.From themid80's theYenratings startedrisingactively versus theUSDollar.Intheearly90's aprosperouseconomic developmentturnedinto astandstill inJapan,theunemploymentincreased;earnings andwages slidas well as thelivingstandardsoftheJapanesepopulation.Andfrom thebeginningoftheyear1991,this causedbankruptcies ofnumerousfinancialorganizationsinJapan.As a consequence,thequotes ontheTokyoStockExchangecollapsed,aYendevaluation tookplace,thereafter,anewwaveofbankruptcies amongmanufacturingcompanies began.In1995ahistorical lowoftheUSD/JPYpair was recordedat-79.80.TheabovestartedanAsiancrisis intheyears1997-1998thatledaYencrash.It resultedinatumbleoftheYen-USdollar pair from 115YensforoneUSdollar to150.Theglobaleconomic crisis touchedalmostall fields ofhumanactivities.Forexcurrency marketwas noexception.Though,Forexparticipants (central banks,commercialbanks, investmentbanks,brokers anddealers,pensionfunds,insurancecompaniesand transnational companies) wereinadifficultposition,theForexmarketcontinues to functionsuccessfully,itis astableandprofitableasnever before.Thefinancial crisis of2007has ledtodrasticchanges intheworld's currencies values. Duringthecrisis,theYenstrengthenedmostofall againstall other currencies.Neither theUSdollar,nor theeuro,buttheYenprovedtobethemostreliablecurrency instrumentfor traders.Oneofthereasonsforsuchstrengtheningcanbeattributedto thefactthattraders neededtofindasanctuaryamidamonetarychaos.Askand BidWhentraders wanttoplaceanorder ontheForexmarkettheyshouldbeawareofthe currencypair as well as thepriceofthispair.AForexmarketpriceofacurrencypair is denotedbytwosymbols,Ask andBid,whichhavespecific digitAsk priceis thehighestpriceinthepair’s quotationatwhichatrader buys thecurrency, standingfirstintheabbreviationofthecurrencypair.Consequently,atrader sells the currencystandingsecond.Bidpriceis thelowestpriceinthequotationofthecurrencypair,atwhichatrader sells thecurrencystandingfirstintheabbreviationofthecurrencypair.Respectively,atrader buys thecurrencystandingsecond.Seemcomplicated?here'sanexample:Let's assumethatwehavethecurrencypair ofEUR/USD withthequotationof1.3652/1.3655.Thismeansthatyoucanbuy1eurofor1.3655dollars or tosell1euro for 1.3652dollars.ThedifferencebetweentheBidpriceandtheAsk priceis called spread.Thespreadisactually thecommissionofthebroker.TheSpreadsinForextradingare actuallyverysmall comparedtocurrencyspreads atbanks.Aterm thatyou'll seealotwhiletradingForexis "pip"and"pips"-a“pip” standsfor “PercentageinPoint”.Apipis thesmallestpricemovementofatradedcurrency.Itis alsoreferredtoasa“point”.Itis veryimportantthatyouunderstandwhatapipis inthe Forextradingbecauseyouwill beusingpips incalculatingyour profits andlosses..For mostcurrenciesapipis 0.0001or 1/100ofacent.Whenacurrencymovesfromavalueof1.2911to1.2914,itmoved3pips.Whenapip has avalueof$10,youhavegained$30.Thereis anexceptionfor quotationsfor JapaneseYenagainstothercurrencies.For currencies inrelationtoJapaneseYenapipis 0.01or 1cent.Another termthatyou'll needtounderstandinrelationtoForextradingis “Lots”.Alotis theminimal tradedamountfor eachcurrencytransaction.For regular accounts onelot equals 100,000unitsofthebasecurrency.Howeveryoucanalsoopenminiandmicro accounts thatallowtradinginsmaller lots.Understanding thePip Spread -Thespreadis closelyassociatedwiththepipandhas amajor importanceforyouas atrader.Asmentionedabove,Itis thedifferencebetweenthesellingandthebuyingpriceofacurrencypair.Itis thedifferenceinthebid andask price.Theaskis thepriceatwhichyoubuyandthebidis thepriceatwhichyousell.SupposetheEUR/USDis quotedat1.4502bidand1.4505ask.Inthis casethespread is 3pips.Thepipspreadis your costofdoingbusiness here.Inthecaseaboveitmeans yousustainapaper lossequal to3pips atthemomentyouenter thetrade.Your contracthastoappreciateby3pipsbeforeyoubreakeven.Thelower thepipspreadtheeasier is itfor youtoprofit.Generallythemoreactiveandbigger themarket,thelower thepipspread.Smaller and moreexotic markets tendtohaveahigher spread.Mostbrokers willbeofferingdiffere thats better dont forget to like and subscribe  
    • or how about... 1. MakingMoneyin ForexTradingTheForexmarkethasadailyvolumeofover $4trillionper day,dwarfingthevolumeof theequityandfuturesmarketscombined.Thousands ofpeople,allover theworld,are tradingForexandmakingtonsofmoney.Whynotyou?All youneedtostarttradingForexis acomputer andanInternetconnection.Youcan doitfrom thecomfortofyour home,inyour sparetimewithoutleavingyour dayjob. Andyoudon'tneedalargesum ofmoneytostart,youcantradeinitially withaminimal sum,or betteroff,youcanstartpracticingwithademoaccountwithouttheneedto depositanymoney.OnceyouconsiderstartingForextrading,oneofthefirstthings youneedtodois chooseabroker,choosingareliablebroker is thesinglemostcriticalfactor toForex success.We currently trade at eToro platform. After testing several Forex platforms we find this one to be the best. What made the difference is a unique feature that allow us to watch and copy the strategies and trades of the best performing traders on the platform. You can actually see each move the "Guru" traders make. This method works nicely for us. Since we started trading at this broker we noticed an increase of our successful trades and profits when compared to our former brokers. You may want to check them out.Please note that all trading involves risk. Only risk capital you're prepared to lose. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This post is for educational purposes and should not be considered as investment advice.NowIwouldstronglyencourageyoutogoandvisittheabovebroker's siterightnow evenifyouarenotyetdecidedwhether youwanttogointoForextrading.Why? Becauseitprovides tons offreeeducationmaterials,videosandbestofall ademo accountthatallows youtopracticeForextradingforfreewithouttheneedtodeposit anymoney.Simplygotothesite,registerforafreeaccountandstart"trading"-by actuallypracticingandexperiencingitfirsthandyou'll beabletodecidewhether Forex tradingisfor you.Inanycase,beforestartingtotradefor real,itis advisablethatyoupracticewithademo account.Onceyoubuildsomeskill andfeelmorecomfortablewiththesystemyou can starttradinggraduallyfor real money.GotoTop           2.WhatisForexTradingForeignexchange,popularlyknownas 'Forex'or 'FX',is thetradeofasinglecurrency for another atadecidedtradepriceontheover-the-counter (OTC)marketplace.Forex is definitelytheworld's mosttradedmarket,havinganaverageturnover ofmorethan US$4trillioneachday.ComparethistotheNewYork Stock Exchange,thathasadailyturnover ofabout US$70billionanditisveryobvious howtheForexmarketisdefinitelythelargest financialmarketontheglobe.Inessence,Forexcurrencytradingis theactofsimultaneouslypurchasingoneforeign currencywhilstsellinganother,mainlyfor thepurposeofspeculation.Foreigncurrency values increase(appreciate) anddrop(depreciate) towards oneanother asaresultof varietyoffactors suchas economics andgeopolitics.ThenormalobjectiveofFXtraders is tomakemoneyfrom thesetypes ofchanges inthevalueofoneforeigncurrency againstanother byactivelyspeculatingonwhichwayforeignexchangerates arelikelytoturninthefuture.Incontrasttothemajorityoffinancialmarkets,theOTC (over-the-counter) currency marketsdoes nothaveanyphysical placeormainexchangeandtrades 24-hours every dayviaaworldwidesystem ofcompanies,financial institutionsandindividuals.Because ofthis,currencyratesarecontinuouslyrisingandfallinginvaluetowards oneanother, providingnumerous tradingchoices.Oneoftheimportantelements regardingForex's popularityis thefactthatcurrency tradingmarkets usuallyareavailable24-hours adayfromSundayeveningrightthrough toFridaynight.Buyingandsellingfollows theclock,beginningonMondaymorningin Wellington,NewZealand,movingontoAsiantradespearheadedfrom Tokyoand Singapore,aheadofgoingtoLondonandconcludingonFridayeveninginNewYork.Thefactthatprices areavailabletodeal 24-hours dailymakes certainthatprice gapping(whenever apriceleapsfrom onelevel toanother withnotradingbetween) is less andmakes surethattraders couldtakeapositioneachtimetheydesire, irrespectiveoftime,eventhoughinrealitythereareparticular 'lull' occasions when volumes tendtobebelowtheir dailyaveragewhichcouldwidenmarketspreads.Forexis aleveraged(or margined) item,whichmeansthatyouaresimplyrequiredto putinasmall percentageofthefull valueofyour positiontosetaforeignexchange trade.Becauseofthis,thechanceofprofit,orloss,fromyour primarymoneyoutlayis considerablygreater thaninconventional trading.Currencies aredesignatedbythreeletter symbols.Thestandardsymbolsfor someof themostcommonlytradedcurrencies are: EUR –Euros   USD –UnitedStatesdollar CAD –Canadiandollar GBP–BritishpoundJPY–JapaneseYen AUD –Australiandollar CHF –Swiss francForextransactionsarequotedinpairsbecauseyouarebuyingonecurrencywhile sellinganother.Thefirstcurrencyis thebasecurrencyandthesecondcurrencyis the quotecurrency.Theprice,or rate,thatis quotedistheamountofthesecondcurrencyrequiredto purchaseoneunitofthefirstcurrency.For example,ifEUR/USD has anask priceof1.2327,youcanbuyoneEurofor 1.2327USdollars.Thereareso-calledmajors,for whicharound75%ofallmarketoperations onForexare held:theEUR/USD,GBP/USD,USD/CHF,andUSD/JPY.Aswesee,theUSdollar is representedinall currencypairs,thus,ifacurrencypair contains theUSdollar,this pair is consideredamajorcurrencypair.Pairs whichdonotincludetheUSdollar arecalled cross currencypairs,or cross rates.Thefollowingcross rates arethemostactively traded:EUR/CHF = euro-franc EUR/GBP= euro-sterling EUR/JPY= euro-Yen GBP/JPY= sterling-Yen AUD/JPY= aussie-Yen NZD/JPY= kiwi-YenTogiveyouatasteofwhatis happeningintheForexarenaherearesomehistoricalForexevents.Oneofthemostinterestingmovements intheForexmarketinvolvingtheBritishpound tookplaceintheSeptember16,1992.Thatdayis knownas BlackWednesdaywiththe BritishPoundpostingits biggestfall.Itwas mostlyseenintheGBP/DEM (BritishPound vs.theDeutschemark)andtheGBP/USD (BritishPoundvs.theUSdollar) currency pairs.ThefalloftheBritishpoundagainsttheUSdollar intheperiodfrom November toDecember 1992constituted25%(from2.01to1.51GBP/USD).     Thegeneral reasonsfor this "sterlingcrisis"aresaidtobetheparticipationofGreat BritainintheEuropeancurrencysystemwithfixedexchangeratecorridors;recently passedparliamentaryelections;areductionintheBritishindustrialoutput;theBank of Englandeffortstoholdtheparityratefor theDeutschemark,as well as adramatic outflowofinvestors.Atthesametime,duetoaprofitabilityslant,theGermancurrency marketbecamemoreattractivethantheBritishone.All inall,thespeculators were rushingtosellpoundsfor Deutschemarks andfor USdollars.Theconsequencesofthis currencycrisiswereas follows:asharpincreaseintheBritishinterestratefrom 10%to15%,theBritishGovernmenthadtoacceptpounddevaluationandtosecedefrom the EuropeanMonetarySystem.Asaresult,thepoundreturnedtoafloatingexchange rate.Another intriguingcurrencypair is theUSdollar vs.theJapaneseYen(USD/JPY).The USdollar andJapaneseYenis thethirdonthelistofmosttradedcurrencypairs after theEUR/USDandGBP/USD.Itistradedmostactivelyduringsessions inAsia. Movementsofthis pairareusuallysmooth;theUSD/JPYpair quicklyreacts totherisk peakingoffinancialmarkets.From themid80's theYenratings startedrisingactively versus theUSDollar.Intheearly90's aprosperouseconomic developmentturnedinto astandstill inJapan,theunemploymentincreased;earnings andwages slidas well as thelivingstandardsoftheJapanesepopulation.Andfrom thebeginningoftheyear1991,this causedbankruptcies ofnumerousfinancialorganizationsinJapan.As a consequence,thequotes ontheTokyoStockExchangecollapsed,aYendevaluation tookplace,thereafter,anewwaveofbankruptcies amongmanufacturingcompanies began.In1995ahistorical lowoftheUSD/JPYpair was recordedat-79.80.TheabovestartedanAsiancrisis intheyears1997-1998thatledaYencrash.It resultedinatumbleoftheYen-USdollar pair from 115YensforoneUSdollar to150.Theglobaleconomic crisis touchedalmostall fields ofhumanactivities.Forexcurrency marketwas noexception.Though,Forexparticipants (central banks,commercialbanks, investmentbanks,brokers anddealers,pensionfunds,insurancecompaniesand transnational companies) wereinadifficultposition,theForexmarketcontinues to functionsuccessfully,itis astableandprofitableasnever before.Thefinancial crisis of2007has ledtodrasticchanges intheworld's currencies values. Duringthecrisis,theYenstrengthenedmostofall againstall other currencies.Neither theUSdollar,nor theeuro,buttheYenprovedtobethemostreliablecurrency instrumentfor traders.Oneofthereasonsforsuchstrengtheningcanbeattributedto thefactthattraders neededtofindasanctuaryamidamonetarychaos.Askand BidWhentraders wanttoplaceanorder ontheForexmarkettheyshouldbeawareofthe currencypair as well as thepriceofthispair.AForexmarketpriceofacurrencypair is denotedbytwosymbols,Ask andBid,whichhavespecific digital notations.     Ask priceis thehighestpriceinthepair’s quotationatwhichatrader buys thecurrency, standingfirstintheabbreviationofthecurrencypair.Consequently,atrader sells the currencystandingsecond.Bidpriceis thelowestpriceinthequotationofthecurrencypair,atwhichatrader sells thecurrencystandingfirstintheabbreviationofthecurrencypair.Respectively,atrader buys thecurrencystandingsecond.Seemcomplicated?here'sanexample:Let's assumethatwehavethecurrencypair ofEUR/USD withthequotationof1.3652/1.3655.Thismeansthatyoucanbuy1eurofor1.3655dollars or tosell1euro for 1.3652dollars.ThedifferencebetweentheBidpriceandtheAsk priceis called spread.Thespreadisactually thecommissionofthebroker.TheSpreadsinForextradingare actuallyverysmall comparedtocurrencyspreads atbanks.Aterm thatyou'll seealotwhiletradingForexis "pip"and"pips"-a“pip” standsfor “PercentageinPoint”.Apipis thesmallestpricemovementofatradedcurrency.Itis alsoreferredtoasa“point”.Itis veryimportantthatyouunderstandwhatapipis inthe Forextradingbecauseyouwill beusingpips incalculatingyour profits andlosses..For mostcurrenciesapipis 0.0001or 1/100ofacent.Whenacurrencymovesfromavalueof1.2911to1.2914,itmoved3pips.Whenapip has avalueof$10,youhavegained$30.Thereis anexceptionfor quotationsfor JapaneseYenagainstothercurrencies.For currencies inrelationtoJapaneseYenapipis 0.01or 1cent.Another termthatyou'll needtounderstandinrelationtoForextradingis “Lots”.Alotis theminimal tradedamountfor eachcurrencytransaction.For regular accounts onelot equals 100,000unitsofthebasecurrency.Howeveryoucanalsoopenminiandmicro accounts thatallowtradinginsmaller lots.Understanding thePip Spread -Thespreadis closelyassociatedwiththepipandhas amajor importanceforyouas atrader.Asmentionedabove,Itis thedifferencebetweenthesellingandthebuyingpriceofacurrencypair.Itis thedifferenceinthebid andask price.Theaskis thepriceatwhichyoubuyandthebidis thepriceatwhichyousell.SupposetheEUR/USDis quotedat1.4502bidand1.4505ask.Inthis casethespread is 3pips.Thepipspreadis your costofdoingbusiness here.Inthecaseaboveitmeans yousustainapaper lossequal to3pips atthemomentyouenter thetrade.Your contracthastoappreciateby3pipsbeforeyoubreakeven.Thelower thepipspreadtheeasier is itfor youtoprofit.Generallythemoreactiveandbigger themarket,thelower thepipspread.Smaller and moreexotic markets tendtohaveahigher spread.Mostbrokers willbeofferingdifferent  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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