Cryptosquawk – The latest news from the blockchain world

Bitcoin could decline further

After a short-lived upside correction, bitcoin resumed its decline, plunging below $8,300. BTCUSD exchange rate broke the $8,000 support area and hit a new monthly low near $7,750. Upsides are likely to remain capped between $8,250 and $8,300, while downsides were contained in many major altcoins. ETHUSD retested the $155 support level and bounced back above $165. XRPUSD consolidated losses and facing hurdles near the $0.245 and $0.250 levels.

There was a downside extension in bitcoin price below the $8,200 and $8,000 support levels. BTCUSD tested the $7,750 area and it has corrected higher, hovering around $8,000. An immediate resistance is near the $8,150 and $8,200 levels. However, the main resistance is near the $8,300, above which the price could recover to $8,500. Should the upside correction fail, the price might revisit $7,750, or even hit $7,500.
Ethereum price declined below the $165 support area, as a consequence of bitcoin’s big fall. However, ETHUSD stayed above the $150 and $152 support levels. The price bounced back above $160 and it is currently trading slighlty below $170. On the upside, there are a few important resistances near the $172 and $175 levels, above which there are chances of a recovery in the near term.
Bitcoin cash price retested the main $200 support level and it is currently consolidating below the $220 resistance. In case of upside break above $220 and $230, BCHUSD might recover towards the key $250 level. Conversely, there is a risk of a downside break below the $200 support area.
EOS remained stable above the $2.500 level. However, the price is facing a lot of hurdles near the $2.850 and $2.900 levels. The key resistance for a strong recovery is near the $3.000 level. On the downside, a break below $2.500 might push the price to $2.200.
Ripple price tested the $0.225 support area and it is currently trading above $0.240. XRPUSD seems to be facing a strong resistance near the $0.245 and $0.250 levels, above which the price might test the key $0.264 resistance.
Top 10 alt-coins hit six-month lows
Nearly all top 10 alt-coins by market capitalization hit a 6-month low last week, as a consequence of bitcoin’s dip. Ripple hit a 658-day low of $0.22 on September 24, marking it as the biggest loser and single-day loss amongst the top 10 by market value. It leads by a large margin after reaching its lowest value in almost 2 years, while bitcoin cash, bitcoin SV and Ethereum suffered the least after hitting only 4-month lows.
Still, the event marks a period where the primary trend for all cryptos has been thrown into contention after the majority crossed their respective 200-day MA, a sign of long-term market health, in July.
A total of $16 billion has been taken out from the alt-coin market since September 24, measured by its total market capitalization excluding bitcoin.
We will see if the bulls begin going long to push prices higher, for fear that the downward pressure forces another major sell-off towards the expected target of around $6,200  from bitcoin’s measured move from its latest descending triangle breakdown.
Two stock exchange giants are ready to bet on cryptobusiness
On the same day (Sep. 23) when Bakkt, the U.S.-based physically-settled Bitcoin futures trading platform, was finally launched, two big European stock exchange operators made their moves in the cryptobusiness arena.
The second-largest stock exchange in Germany, Boerse Stuttgart, has launched Boerse Stuttgart Digital Exchange, the Germany’s first regulated trading platform for digital assets. An end-to-end exchange for trading digital assets, SIX Digital Exchange, a member of SIX Group, the operator of Switzerland’s stock exchange SIX, has launched a prototype of its digital exchange and central securities depository ahead of the expected full launch in the firth quarter of 2020.
As for BSDEX, at this stage only selected users in Germany can connect directly to the trading venue, where they can trade the bitcoin-euro pair initially.
“We are opening BSDEX gradually to a larger group of investors. At first, it will be German residents who can connect to BSDEX. In the next step, BSDEX will be opened for investors in other countries of the European Union,” Dirk Sturz, CEO of Boerse Stuttgart Digital Exchange, which is the technical operator of BSDEX, told without elaborating on the timeline in more detail. Boerse Stuttgart Digital Exchange, is a joint venture of Boerse Stuttgart, Axel Springer, a major European publishing house, and, the finance news website owned by Axel Springer.
BSDEX plans to add other trading pairs later this year. According to the CEO, BSDEX is now focused on ethereum (ETH), litecoin (LTC), and XRP as trading pairs with euro: “We will add further trading pairs depending on market feedback.”
Moreover, the company is planning to offer trading in other digital, tokenized assets in 2020.

The importance of technical analysis in forex markets

The widespread use of technical analysis by forex traders was first took into consideration at the end of the 1980s. At that time the technical analysis did not receive much support among economists. The scepticism with which academic economists initially viewed (and to some extent continue to view) technical analysis came largely from the true belief in the efficient markets hypothesis developed by Eugene Fama, which states that all relevant information are always embodied in prices, making it impossible for traders to earn excess returns on forecasts based on historical price movements.
In the 1990s some empirical studies were made to test the use of technical analysis among traders. The first one was by Allen and Taylor and was carried out among chief forex dealers at financial institutions located in London in 1988. Others have covered traders based in London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, New York and Zurich. In 1995 the BIS ranked the seven locations covered by the survey studies as first to seventh in terms of daily turnover in forex dealing, making up about 78% of the total global turnover; the combined market share of these centres was virtually unchanged until 2004.
These empirical studies documented systematically that technical analysis was (and still is), indeed, an important tool in decision making in the forex market. They further discovered complementarity in the use of technical and fundamental analysis by traders , and showed that reliance on technical analysis was skewed towards shorter trading or forecast horizons. Three stylised facts emerged: 1) almost all forex traders use technical analysis as a tool in decision making at least to some degree; 2) most forex traders use some combination of technical and fundamental analysis; 3) the relative weight given to technical analysis as opposed to fundamental analysis rises as the trading or forecast horizon declines.
Those surveys which asked traders whether or not they used technical analysis at some horizon found that around 90% or more did so. The fact that traders use technical analysis does not by itself, however, mean that they regard it as of major importance—they may attach some weight to it, but only a low weight. Although not identical in design, most of the surveys also asked traders to quantify the weight given to technical analysis relative to fundamental analysis at various horizons; the average relative weight assigned to technical analysis ranges from around 30% to a little over 50%.
A further aspect of the importance of technical analysis concerns its use among various groups of traders, since a high average score could mask its concentration in small subgroups. Technical analysis is perceived as important relative to fundamentals across a range of practitioner groups such as chief forex dealers, international portfolio managers and others, whatever their specific role in forex trading may be. Early analytical studies that allocated a role to technical analysts or chartists tended to view chartists and fundamentalists as competing groups. Some studies, however, challenges this adversarial view of chartism and fundamentalism. Other studies have basically reproduced this finding of perceived complementarity (i.e. a reliance on fundamental and technical analysis). In particular, the weight given to strong mutual exclusiveness of chartism and fundamentalism, i.e. a reliance on either fundamental or technical analysis, is at most 10% of respondents in all studies.
Finally, technical analysis tends to be perceived as less important at longer horizons in comparison with fundamental analysis. Some studies relate the perceived relative importance of technical and fundamental analysis with forecast or trading horizon. Other studies, instead, show the result remains unchanged for the medium and longer horizons but becomes less clear for the very short horizon. There is, however, an obvious reason for this apparent difference in perceived relative importance at the very short horizon, in terms of their coverage of analytical tools or price-determining factors. In particular, some studies take into account other factors such as the perceived importance attached by traders to information on order flow (i.e. on information relating to the value of forex transactions signed according to the originator of the trade). The inclusion of factors other than technical and fundamental analysis in the menu of choices offered to survey participants thus dilutes the relative score given to technical analysis in the shorter-term domain.

Cryptosquawk – The latest news from the blockchain world

Weiss downgrades Litecoin and Cardano, promotes Monero

The rating agency Weiss Ratings downgraded Litecoin and Cardano, and upgraded Monero’s rating. The ratings of the first two cryptocurrencies have been lowered from “C+” to “C”. The risk / return level of Litecoin remained unchanged at “D”, both aspects classified as “weak”, while its degree of technology / adoption is “B+”, “equo” the first and “excellent” the second, the rating agency has announced. Cardano received a “D-” in risk / return, both classified as “weak”, but a “B+” in technology / adoption, classified respectively “excellent” and “good”.
Before the downgrade, Litecoin and Cardano were respectively in fourth and fifth place in the ranking, with Bitcoin and Ethereum leading with their “B” level, followed by four other cryptocurrencies with a “C+” rating. One of these is Monero, after the upgrade from “C” to “C+”, whose risk and return were classified as “weak” and classified with a “D+”. The degree of technology and adoption was found to be “B”, with both being assessed as “good”.

Line and Huobi launch cryptocurrency exchanges in Japan and Argentina

Japan and Argentina welcome two new exchanges developed by big players. In Japan, the giant chat app Line officially launched its new Bitmax platform, managed by the Tokyo LVC subsidiary. The company obtained operating authorization from the Financial Services Agency earlier this month.According to a Nikkei report, Bitmax is currently available only for Android users, although an iOS version is in preparation. The platform will initially focus on five cryptocurrencies: bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, litecoin and Ripple. However, the Line link token is not yet available on the platform, probably for regulatory reasons. Line’s goal is to link its Bitmax offer to its other services and has already added a Bitmax card to the wallet menu in its app, which is believed to have around 55 million users in Japan.Line also announced that Japanese users will be able to make deposits from their Bitmax accounts to their Line Pay (e-pay) accounts. The company is a subsidiary of the South Korean technology giant Naver.Meanwhile, the Huobi global exchange has announced that it has opened a trading platform in Argentina. Huobi will also introduce a fiat “gateway” towards the middle of October this year for trading Argentine pesos. The company stated that its gateway will allow users to “buy cryptocurrencies via credit card, bank transfer and […] digital payment providers like Mercadopago”.Carlos Banfi, CEO of Huobi Argentina, said: “Argentina is the most promising market in South America for blockchain development. There is already a general consensus to get rid of dependence on local currency and banks. “The company also confirmed that it had held talks with” senior Argentine financial officials “, in which the parties” discussed the role the blockchain could play in development economic development of the country “.Banfi added that “this is a great opportunity to shift the balance towards the blockchain and the adoption of cryptocurrencies in Argentina”. Their rival, OKGroup, the owner of the OKEx exchange, entered this market with a fiat-to-crypto OKCoin exchange in November 2018. However, as new players are entering the market, many companies have decided to abandon the business lately.

Bitcoin Price Dips as Bear Cross Looms

Bitcoin fell last week, bolstering the bearish setup on the 4-hour daily charts. A UTC close below a key support at $9,450 would confirm a downside break of a three-month-long contracting triangle and expose the 200-day moving average support lined up close to $8,100. A rise above $10,458 would negate the bearish trend, while a UTC close above $10,958 would confirm a bullish triangle breakout.The 50- and 100-day moving averages are about to produce a bearish crossover, a lagging indicator known to trap sellers on the wrong side of the market. Bitcoin slipped to a multi-day lows last week. An expected drop, as Bitcoin was in downtrend following last week’s failed breakout. Volatility also fell to multi-month lows, indicating scope for an explosive price move. Prices have bounced back a little, but the bearish mood still remains.The spread between the 50- and 100-day MAs has narrowed sharply and the two averages will likely soon produce a bearish cross, a phenomenon which occurs when a short-term MA falls below a long-term MA. If confirmed, the event would mark the first cross since September 16, 2018.The bearish cross is considered as a warning of an impending price crash. It is, however, based on historical data and tend to lag price. Hence, this indicator has limited predictive powers at best and often end up trapping sellers on the wrong side of the market.For instance, the 50-day MA fell below the 100-day MA on August 29, 2016, when Bitcoin was trading near $570. The cryptocurrency remained flatlined in the next couple of days before rising above $600 on September 4. More importantly, the $570 price seen on August 29 was never put to test throughout the fierce rise to a record high of $20,000 touched in December 2017.Observers may argue that last September’s bearish cross was followed by a sharp sell-off to levels below $5,000 in November. However, at that time, the cryptocurrency found itself in a bear market. Also, prices remained sidelined above $6,000 for at least six weeks following the confirmation of the bear cross, before dropping in November.Currently, Bitcoin is in a bull market, having charted higher lows and higher highs in the second quarter of the year. Hence, the latest bear cross may not be a cause for worry for the bulls – especially considering the crypto is still stuck in a three-month-long narrowing of its price range.

Stop-Loss and Take-Profit

Stop-loss and take-profit are two typical actions undertaken by traders in their daily activity. Properly used they allow a trader to increase the profitability of his trading. The stop-loss is that level which, if exceeded, automatically closes a position in order to avoid a high loss. Instead, the take-profit is that level which, if touched, automatically closes the position, allowing a certain gain. The levels at which these two orders are set depend on the trader’s objectives and there is no rule that applies to every case.
A typical example in which they are used is one in which the position is opened following the completion of a figure. In this situation the levels at which it is necessary to close the position (at a loss or in gain) coincide with the key levels of the figure itself. In the case of a head-and-shoulder, for example, the take-profit will be positioned at the top of the figure, while the stop-loss will be just above the neckline.
For example, if a trader buys the EURUSD pair at a value of 1.1 and sets a stop-loss of 1.0%, this means that, if the EURUSD goes down, the position will be closed at a loss of 1.09.
Holding stubbornly positions open on an account is certainly a bad choice, because by doing so, a trader risks increasing the loss even further. Also from the psychological point of view it is not the best situation.
There are 3 typical ways to set a stop-loss. The first one is to fix it based on a percentage value, deciding in advance how much to risk. If we set it at 0.1%, for example, we could at most lose 0.1% of the account. This is an easy system but considered not to be the most effective. The second one is to set it on supports and resistances, static or dynamic. Setting the stop under a support when buying, or over a resistance when selling, allows a trader to achieve greater profits. The third one is to set it based on market volatility. Suppose the volatility of the EURUSD is 100 pips, meaning that the pair can increase up or down by that amount. In this case, setting a 20 pip – stop-loss may not be an effective solution. Bollinger bands are a useful tool for measuring the volatility of a market well. Using the bands with the standard settings on the daily chart, and setting the stop-loss outside the bands, can increase the profitability of the trading.

In the most modern trading platforms there is also the ‘trailing stop-loss’ option, which allows a trader to keep a position open when it does not lose more than a certain percentage compared to the last maximum reached.
Setting the stop-loss correctly is a very important thing, as it helps a trader to respect his trading strategy, avoiding emotional influences. The size of the stop-loss is also one of those extremely important factors for assessing the overall risk, relating the maximum loss to the possible profit of the position to be opened. Usually, a stop-loss range of 1-2% of an account is recommended.

What are the most traded currencies in the world?

19The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has published its latest three-year central bank survey, which tracks global exchange activity in major markets.
According to the BIS, trading in the forex markets reached 6.6 trillion dollars a day in April 2019, a sharp increase compared to 5.1 trillion in 2016. The US dollar has maintained its more exchanged currency record, representing approximately 88% of all operations. The euro’s share rose slightly to 32%. On the contrary, the share of the Japanese yen fell by around -5%, although the Japanese currency remained the third most actively traded (17% of all operations), wrote the BIS.
Good news for emerging currencies. The BIT wrote that “as in previous surveys, the currencies of emerging market economies have again gained market share, reaching 25% of global turnover. The turnover of the Chinese renminbi, however, grew only slightly faster than the aggregate market and the renminbi did not rise further in the global rankings.
“The yuan remained the eighth most traded currency, with a 4.3% share, positioning itself immediately after the Swiss franc,” said the Basel institution.
The South African rand was ranked as the eighteenth most traded currency in the world, rising from the twentieth position three years ago. The rand represented 1.1% of the average daily turnover recorded in April 2019, up from 1.0% in 2016.
In the last 15 years, the rand has been used more and more in exchange operations, despite having ranked higher in the surveys of 2004 and 2007. In those years, the South Africa’s currency was ranked respectively in sixteenth and fifteenth position, but represented only 0.7% and 0.9% of the average daily turnover recorded in the same periods. The rand share is on a par with that of other emerging economies such as Russia, India, Brazil and Turkey.

The ECB is thinking to launch a digital euro to counter Facebook’s Libra

The European Central Bank could soon launch its own digital currency, with Germany and France ready to support the project. The news, if confirmed, would be a real coup in the global cryptocurrency scenario, considering that, under Mario Draghi, the Frankfurt institute has always said it was against, or at least skeptical, these currencies. Now, with Christine Lagarde’s new presidency things could radically change. The prospect was put forward by another French banker, Benoit Couré, a member of the ECB’s governing council who declared in Helsinki that “we need to intensify the reflection on a digital currency of the central bank”, defining the announcement given by Facebook on the introduction of its Libra currency “an alarm clock”.
The consequences on the international payment system would obviously be enormous. In the case of introduction of the digital version, in fact, the euro would no longer be represented by banknotes but by electronic instruments, deposited directly at the headquarters of the central bank, without going through the credit institutions, with a disruptive impact also on the activity of banks which, as can be expected, would immediately raise huge barricades.
The digital euro, sponsorised by Paris and Berlin, would not only have a practical goal but also a strategic one, to counter the launch of Libra, which would be a private competitor, but also the introduction of the digital Yuan by the People Bank of China, the Chinese central bank, and of the national digital currency by the Swedish central bank. These two monetary authorities, in particular, currently have a competitive advantage. An advantage that the ECB intends to fill, so as not to be caught unprepared. The use of digital euro would also serve to limit the use of cash in circulation in the eurozone, with a consequent reduction in the risk of evasion, which is particularly high in Southern Europe countries.On the British side, the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, completely revising his traditional critical position on cryptocurrencies, stated that it is time to create a network of digital currencies issued by central banks. A strategy that would make it possible to reduce the weight of the dollar as a reserve currency in international trade. Certainly, the rush of central banks to issue digital currencies cannot fail to have effects also on the world of private digital currencies. However, it is still early to say if this leads to their strengthening or weakening.

Cryptosquawk – The latest news from the blockchain world

CME ready to double monthly bitcoin futures open position limit 
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is ready to allow bitcoin futures traders to hold a greater number of open positions at one time, reports. The goal is to increase the spot month position limit for its bitcoin futures contracts. The request was transmitted to the U.S. CFTC. If this is accepted, the limit would be doubled from the current 1,000 spot contracts/ month to 2,000 contracts for any single investor. Since each contract is for five bitcoin, the trader’s maximum exposure would be 5,000 BTC (about $50M at current prices) to 2,000 contracts (10,000 BTC, or $100M).The company sees room for this market to grow, and is seeking to increase these limits “based on the significant growth and acceptance of our financially-settled CME Bitcoin futures markets, as well as our analysis of the underlying bitcoin market,” said a spokesperson. If the CFTC will not reject the proposal, the novelty will take effect on September 30 for the October 2019 contract.
Is a new price rally approaching for Bitcoin? 
An astonishing price rally could come soon for Bitcoin. A key technical indicator’s bullish turn suggests this. The price action observed over the last eight months looks very similar to that one observed in 2015, according to Bitstamp data. Looking at the data, the bitcoin bear market ended close to $3,100 in mid-December 2018 and prices built a base below $4,000 in the following three months before breaking into a bull market on April 2. Notably, the bear market drop exausted two months before the 50- and 10-week MAs confirmed a bearish crossover, in February 2019. Further, another bull market phase began two months after the confirmation of the bearish crossover. That is not surprising, as bearish crossovers of long duration MAs often signals bear market lows. Another coincidence is that the 2014 bear market phase had also exausted in the run-up to the bearish crossover and the confirmation of the crossover was followed by a bullish breakout.
Tagomi launches a platform for Crypto Shorting 
Crypto broker Tagomi released its borrowing and lending platform to the wider public, enabling traders to short bitcoin and ethereum. Tagomi’s COO Kevin Johnson told CoinDesk that the new platform addresses issues that currently thwart institutional crypto shorts. Many big investors could not short cryptocurrencies rapidly because the existing borrowing process for crypto is too complex. “First, you have to either find an exchange that’s able to lend, or talk to one of the centralized lending counterparties, negotiate rates, settle that, borrow, and then you could get to be in the process of actually selling the coin short”, Johnson said, adding that this is the biggest barrier for institutional investors. Co-founder Marc Bharvaga said the service brings Tagomi closer to becoming a full-suite prime brokerage, which is how institutional investors prefer to manage their trading. “Having a full prime brokerage functionality, which we now have through being able to do best execution, being able to custody, being able to lend, being able to short and there’s quite a few other things on the road map as we think about the [crypto] space,” Bharvaga explained.

On the stability of stablecoins’ business model
Stablecoins have been created to achieve more stability. No doubt about it. Nevertheless, wondered if they have stable business models capable of generating profits for producers. The short answer is that, in many cases, they do. But not always. “Most stablecoin projects are designed to make a profit for their founders, usually from transaction fees,” Glen Goodman, the author of The Crypto Trader, told crypto website are several companies which charge stablecoin fees. Circle occasionally charges a withdrawal fee for converting its USDC stablecoin into USD, asking users to pay USD 50 in the event of failed wire transfers. Likewise, Tether charges a 0.1% fee for buying USDT and anything from a 0.4% to 3,0% fee for converting USDT back to USD. Digix Global stablecoin – which essentially tokenizes gold – charges a 0.13% transaction fee and also a “Daily Deductible Demurrage Fee” charged annually at 0.6%. Some other stablecoins don’t charge any transaction fee, but there are still costs associated with usage that generate revenue for producers. Paxos doesn’t impose any direct fees for converting or redeeming its Paxos Standard Token, but it  charges fees for using its crypto-exchange, so in the longer term users end up paying indirectly for the use of the stablecoin.

EURUSD and Quantitative Easing

The euro dollar exchange rate is one of the most stable in the forex market. It often remains around at the same level for a fair number of days, if not weeks. However, there are particular situations in which even this currency pair moves a lot. These include, among others, meetings of the European Central Bank, in which the Governing Council takes decisions on interest rates and on the money supply. For some years now, thanks to the international crisis, the decision to purchase government bonds has also been added to the decision elements of the Frankfurt monetary authority, otherwise known as quantitative easing.
The monetary easing is part of the instruments that characterize the expansionary monetary measures. A trivial rule of thumb states that an expansionary monetary policy always causes the depreciation of the domestic currency and the appreciation of foreign currencies. Thus, the euro dollar exchange rate is affected by a change in this type of monetary policy.
The real trouble, or opportunity, for traders is when the central bank announces the program. It is immediately after this announcement, in fact, that chances of gain are maximized but also the possibility of loss. In the minutes / hours before the announcement, instead, it is useless to hope to make profits. No trader, in fact, operates before the central bank’s decision, and the market is static.
The announcement is different. Let’s take, as a case study, the decision taken by the ECB yesterday, when central bankers lowered the interest rate on deposits by ten tenths of a point and restarted the purchase of government bonds at the pace of € 20 billion per month. If we look at the chart, for example the one with a 15 minute timeframe, which was formed in the seconds following the publication of ECB decisions, we can easily see that the opening of the bar took place at 1.1021; immediately afterwards there was a sudden surge towards 1.1066 (+45 pips) and then, a few seconds later, an equally sharp retracement to 1.0961 (-105 pips), to then close at 1.0967.
An excursion of 105 pips in a few seconds in the EURUSD pair is an exceptional event on the forex markets. The sudden variations depend on the purchase/sale operations entered by the traders immediately after reading the decision. For this reason, it is important for a trader who wishes to operate in that circumstance to read immediately the statement published on the ECB’s website.

It also often happens that a statement is interpreted in a more dovish or hawkish manner by most traders, who then realize that the monetary policy stance is more or less restrictive / expansionary than what initially expected, so that retracements are observed. For these reasons, it is good to always remember that the high volatility of the EURUSD depends on the feeling spontaneously formed in the market, and that this could change depending on the interpretation that traders give to the central bank’s decision, minute after minute.

Forex portfolio diversification

The vast majority of forex traders follow portfolio diversification strategies, in order to obtain profitable investments, maximising the return, while minimizing the risk. There are many well-known diversification strategies a trader can use. For instance, the selection of currencies based on the uncorrelated pairs is one of the most famous. The advantage of a diversification strategy is basically to reduce the trading risk. However, some side effects do exist too, as the more diversified the portfolio, the less variation will have.

A trader must bear in mind that over-diversification is never a very good idea. Dividing the trading risk in too many asset classes makes the portfolio insensible not only to future losses but also to potential profits. A diversification strategy is always possible, because modern forex brokers offer their clients to trade on various asset classes from the same trading account: commodities (gold, silver, oil), stock indices, cryptos, and so on. Correlations among these asset classes is the most important variable to take into account to achieve a good diversified portfolio.
The starting point to any money management strategy is understanding the elements of a trader’s account and tools the trader has at disposal. Next, the asset classes to chose. Last, the diversification strategy, that should take into account the limitation of losses (risk) and the maximization of profits (return).

In a money management, diversification strategy, the aim is to make a profit given a forecasted loss. Not to make profits at any cost. Traders aim to diversify their exposure, in such a way that no market move sets the account to zero.

When a trader wants to diversify his forex portfolio, he has to start with the size of the account. The amount per se doesn’t matter when applying diversification strategies, a minimum amount exists. The diversification principle holds for any amount, when trading a one hundred, one thousand or a million-dollar account. Investors use percentages calculated on the account’s size to decide the volume of a trade. This, in turn, affects the diversification method’s exposure and the trading account’s performance.

Are asset managers really wrong about the Euro?

Asset managers have been betting for many months, if not years, on an increase of the Euro against the Dollar. Unfortunately for them, the exact opposite is happening. Looking at the COT reports of recent months, fund managers, traditionally the most “strategic” or long-term investors, have brought their long positions over 300 thousand units, touching, last August , the historical record of 337 thousand units, to then slightly decrease up to the 300.5 thousand units of the last COT report dated 3 September. Just to make a comparison, the long positions amounted to not even 40 thousand units at the beginning of 2014.
Also their net positions, ie those obtained by subtracting the short positions from the long ones, have increased with a relatively linear trend in recent years, hitting an all time high of 179.5 thousand units on 24 April 2018, a threshold brought closer last August. In 2014, the difference was even negative, ie in favor of a prevalence of short positions.
The continuous increase in net positions is a clear indication of how asset managers continue to believe in a Euro exploit. A result which has never arrived. Indeed, by observing the Euro-Dollar exchange ratio, it is easy to see how this has been channeled into a downward trend since the beginning of 2018, when it was trading around 1.24. Currently, the pair is trading around 1.1, nearing a 28-month low of 1.0925. Why do asset managers continue to stubbornly focus on the Euro in the long run despite the results seem to prove them wrong? Certainly not for technical analysis reasons, since this type of investors use only the fundamental analysis. One of the reasons brought by some analysts is that the monetary policy stance of the European Central Bank is unsustainable in the long run and that therefore, the interest rates of the Eurozone will have to be increased sooner or later. The result is that the Euro will have to strengthen against the Dollar. Another hypothesis is that the US economy must pay the price of globalization sooner or later and thus diminish its role at the global level, with the consequence that the demand for D
ollars must be reduced accordingly.